Dinosaur Theory Header

Introduction to DinosaurTheory

Year after year we watch science fiction movies showing creatures that are the wrong size. We may wonder what is wrong with this picture; what, if anything, limits the size of animals. But since Galileo’s Square-Cube Law was not included in our elementary science education most people fail to recognize how size matters.

In 1638 Galileo explained what is now called the Square-Cube Law in his last major scientific book titled Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. The Square-Cube Law reveals why the common B-rated science fiction movies theme of showing people, gorillas, or insects as being extremely large or small is not physically possible. The Square-Cube Law is an extremely fundamental scientific concept critical to understanding physics, biology, chemistry, aerodynamics, nanotechnology and numerous other science disciplines. But in addition to these positive attributes, Galileo's Square-Cube Law reveals what is wrong with the paleontologists' claim that there is nothing odd about dinosaurs and pterosaurs growing so large.

Over the years the incongruities have become increasingly apparent as to why dinosaurs and pterosaurs should not be so large. For the large dinosaurs there are the incongruities of 1) insufficient bone strength, 2) insufficient muscle strength, and for the taller dinosaurs 3) the problem of unacceptable high blood pressure. For the pterosaurs there is the paradox that no reptile, not even the smallest reptiles, can fly today and yet during the Mesozoic the pterosaurs grew to be the largest flying animals that ever existed. Clearly the belief that there is no scientific paradox regarding the exceptionally large dinosaurs and pterosaurs is incorrect. Yet the paleontology community has no means of saving face while backing down from their position, and so they continue to mislead the public by denying the paradox.

The confusion caused by the paleontology community has made it extremely difficult for science educators to teach their students Galileo’s Square-Cube Law, and so Galileo’s Square-Cube Law is still being left out of most science education programs. The National Science Education Standards points in the right direction by emphasizing the teaching of the importance of size; yet the National Science Education Standards does not warn science teachers of the existing scientific incongruities and thus it hurts the grade school science teachers who follow its directive. Elementary science teachers are caught like a deer in the headlights the moment one of their smarter students point out the incongruity between the previous existence of exceptionally large dinosaurs and the argument that size is important. The failure of the paleontology community to solve the dinosaur sized paradox obstructs the ability of science educators to teach the fundamental science of Galileo’s Square-Cube Law thus producing the awful effect of holding back the advancement of all the sciences.

There are many talented scientists who recognize the importance of size and thus give us some encouragement that the science community may be able to get back on track. In 1928 J. B. S. Haldane advanced Galileo’s ideas when he wrote On Being the Right Size. A generation later numerous other famous scientists followed with additional arguments supporting Galileo's Square-Cube Law. Physics professors Phillip Morrison, Michael Fowler, Benjamin Crowell; biologists Steven Jay Gould, Michael C. LaBarbera, Steven Vogel, Knut Schmidt-Nielsen, Chris Lavers, John Tyler Bonner; and the rebel paleontologist Christopher McGowan have all presented arguments for why size matters.

However instead of correcting their mistake of ignoring Galileo's work, the science community has moved even farther in the wrong direction.

Scientific beliefs must be held accountable to the evidence, and if it is not then science can easily veer toward becoming a faith-based belief system that is incapable of getting the right answers. This has already happened. Need proof? Just compare a new science education textbook to the textbooks that were written fifty years ago. The newer science textbooks often use phrases such as "the consensus of scientists" and "most scientists agree", phrases that are not found in the older science textbooks. These phrases are being use because the scientists that hold these beliefs have been unsuccessful in identifying clear evidence in support of their beliefs, and yet they are attempting to bypass the evidence requirement so that they can present their beliefs as facts.

Albert Einstein "Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" - Albert Einstein

This is unacceptable. Without clear supporting evidence, a scientific belief cannot be anything more than a hypothesis. People often have difficulty accepting evidence while at the same time they are capable of believing extremely irrational ideas. There is no positive correlation between the popularity of a unsupported belief and its likelihood of it being true; only evidence can determine whether a hypothesis is true. If a scientist cannot give a simple explanation of the evidence supporting their belief then more than likely their belief is wrong.

Another indication of many scientists going the wrong way is their unwillingness to discuss and debate valid evidence, arguments, and ideas. New discoveries are often made when knowledgeable and intelligent people engage in respectful discussions of scientific evidence and ideas. Yet the discussion of scientific ideas often leads to the overthrow of currently accepted beliefs, and this does not please the senior scientists who have built their careers on these questionable beliefs. Instead of graciously acknowledging the contributions of dissenting scientists, these conservative scientists focus on censoring and ostracizing anyone who challenges their dogma. Their impediment to progress can be summed up by Max Planck's quote "science advances one funeral at a time". Many of the beliefs of these conservative scientists are wrong, and these scientists are wrong again when they misuse their authority to censor the discussion of quality scientific ideas and evidence.

Change is needed.

DinosaurTheory gives the solution to the paradox of how the dinosaurs and pterosaurs grew so large. Yet DinosaurTheory is much more than a discussion about dinosaurs. This is because the large dinosaur paradox has existed for centuries so that now it is entangled with numerous other science incongruities that has caused considerable confusion. All of this confusion needs to be sorted out so that science can move forward.

DinosaurTheory is actually a series of related solutions to numerous scientific paradoxes. Consider the fact that most people are confused on whether the exceptionally large terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era are indeed a scientific paradox. Can objects be any arbitrary size? Most scientists and engineers are confused on how to answer this fundamental scientific question and because of this they often make costly and even deadly mistakes. To give another example, most people have no idea how airplanes fly, and most of the people claiming to know the answer are actually just as clueless. Why? Because the explanation typically given in school is bogus. If students were taught the correct theory of how airplanes fly we could build better airplanes. Furthermore, instead of being baffled on how the giant pterosaurs flew, students could identify what is wrong with the misleading explanations given by paleontologists. For a third example, when we consider that many millions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere may have been different, we should also wonder why Earth's present atmosphere - mostly nitrogen and oxygen - is so different from the atmospheres of all the other planets? Yet once we have the correct understanding of how planets evolve, the differences among the planets are no longer baffling. Each one of the solutions to these scientific paradoxes is an extremely significant breakthrough, and yet within DinosaurTheory there is still much more.

Science is an ongoing process of discovery. We do not know why our reality exists, we struggle in defining what is life, we do not know how the laws of physics came to be, or who set the values of the physical constants, but we are certain of one thing: our reality is rational. Einstein is quoted as saying that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. In other words, we can figure this out. For those who are intelligent, imaginative, and curious our reality is a puzzle to be solved, a playground for the mind.

Thank you for having an interest in science.

David Esker
M.S. Physics
College Physics Instructor
Resolution of the Large Dinosaur Paradox
Science of Flight Equations
Theory of Planetary Evolution
Author of DinosaurTheory

Chapter Summaries

1. Galileo’s Square-Cube Law: Galileo’s Square-Cube Law shows that it is impossible to change the size of an object without changing the properties of the object. It is impossible to maintain the proportionality of all the object’s properties because the ratio of an object’s area to its volume decreases with the greater size of an object. This simple scientific concept has far reaching consequences that are extremely important to nearly every science discipline. This chapter explains Galileo’s Square-Cube Law and how the area to volume ratio restricts the variation in size of the more complex objects.

2. The Dinosaur Paradox: Once we understand Galileo’s Square-Cube Law showing how size matters it becomes clear that the large dinosaurs and pterosaurs of the Mesozoic era present a scientific paradox. Four areas of scientific incongruities regarding these animals’ large size are identified: 1) insufficient muscle strength, 2) insufficient bone strength, 3) unacceptably high blood pressure within the tallest dinosaurs, and 4) the paradox of pterosaurs having grossly insufficient power to fly in atmospheric conditions similar to the present. This chapter explains the first three paradoxes concerning the large dinosaurs while the following chapter explains the paradox regarding the large flying pterosaurs.

3. The Science of Flight and the Paradox of Flying Pterosaurs: There is a huge difference between getting something to work and having a correct theoretical understanding of how it works. By testing wing profiles in their wind tunnel and then test flying gliders, the Wright brothers were successful in building the first real airplane; yet nevertheless, the Wright brothers never actually figured out how wings generate lift. A century later we have supersonic jets, and yet the aviation industry still cannot explain how wings generate lift. The most common explanation of lift makes the bogus claim that the air must travel either above or below the wing in the same amount of time. This statement is wrong, and most people within the aviation industry are aware of this. Yet they would rather present an incorrect explanation than suffer the embarrassment of admitting that they cannot explain how an airplane flies. The fact is that the development of airplanes has always been more of an art than a science. The absence of a theoretical understanding of flight becomes most apparent when some paleontologists make their highly questionable claims that they understand how the giant pterosaurs flew. Common sense tells everyone that a reptile the size of a horse should not be capable of flight, but until now there has not been a theoretical understanding of flight enabling us to scientifically clarify what is wrong with the paleontologists’ claim that there is nothing odd about gigantic flying reptiles.

In this chapter, I derive the Science of Flight Equations so as to clarify why large pterosaurs could not have flown in an atmospheric environment similar to the present. These equations, and the concepts incorporated in their derivation, are applicable to all airplanes, birds, and all other medium to large flying objects.

4. The Search for a Rational Solution: Acknowledging the existence of these scientific paradoxes, a systematic investigation is conducted to find the solution. The first step is to determine a scaling factor between the size of the largest and tallest animals of today and the largest and tallest animals of the peak of dinosaur gigantism. The next step investigates how the Earth’s physical environment could have been different during the Mesozoic era to facilitate this gigantism. Each possible hypothesis is systematically investigated in regards to scientific principles and physical evidence. This pattern goes on until the presentation of the last possible hypothesis: that the Earth had an extremely thick atmosphere that provided a buoyancy force that reduced the effective weight of the dinosaurs. This proves to be the correct solution.

5. The Thick Atmosphere Solution: The Thick Atmosphere Solution’s ability to solve the dinosaur paradox qualifies it as being a strong hypothesis, but with additional evidence it can be shown that the Thick Atmosphere Solution is actually a new scientific theory. For a conceptual model to achieve the status of being a scientific theory there needs to be 1) multiple distinct evidence-supported arguments all leading to the same conclusion, and 2) the conceptual model must show itself to be invaluable in providing the ‘big picture’ that allows us to make sense of the numerous miscellaneous surrounding facts that were previously a mystery. Each of the remaining chapters presents an evidence-supported argument that leads to the conclusion that the Earth has had an extremely thick atmosphere throughout most of its existence. This chapter starts by addressing a few misconceptions regarding fluids that may have confused some people regarding animals living in a high pressure atmosphere. The chapter then finishes strong by showing how the Thick Atmosphere Solution solves the long-standing paleoclimatologist puzzle of how the Mesozoic era Earth had the same pleasant climate over its entire surface.

6. Biology Revolution: Sometimes we fail to notice unusual facts that should drive our scientific curiosity. Besides the paradox of the dinosaurs being so large there is also the paradox of why dinosaurs have a distinctly different shape from the large terrestrial animals of today. This chapter emphasizes the application of physics and the Theory of Evolution for the understanding of biology. Specifically it points out how species evolve so as to fill available niches within their physical and biological environment. The reason dinosaurs had disproportionally larger rear legs and a powerful flexible tail is because these appendages best facilitated terrestrial animals attempting to move quickly through a thick fluid that is about 2/3’s of the density of the animal.

7. Hell, Heaven and Earth – The Earth’s Internal Heat: For the Thick Atmosphere Solution to be a complete theory there needs to an explanation and supporting evidence showing how this extremely thick atmosphere came into existence and why the present atmosphere is considerably thinner. This requires the development of a supporting theory explaining the source of the fluids that now surrounds the Earth: a theory on the origin of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. The fact that these fluids came from the interior of the Earth will become clear in later chapters but for now the focus is on how the interior heat is generated so as to drive these fluids to the surface. The quantity of exhausted volcanic gasses that later evolves into being the atmosphere is largely determined by how much heat is generated inside the Earth. This chapter, the first of the three chapter series, investigates hypotheses regarding the source of the Earth’s interior heat. The investigation leads to the hypothesis that tidal forces are the source of the Earth’s internal heat.

8. Hell, Heaven and Earth – Our Solar System: Historically mankind first sought answers about the Earth while it was only recently that scientists had enough data about the planets to theorize about the solar system. This stacking of theories – first the Earth, then the solar system – impedes our ability to reach the correct understanding. To understand the Earth we need to first view it as just another planet in our solar system. After seeing how our solar system evolved we will then understand how our Earth is special.

This chapter presents the evidence showing that gravitational tidal heating is the primary mechanism for heating not just the Earth but all the planets and moons of our solar system. Each planet or moon evolves as a result of this internal heating such that now that it is 4.6 billion years since the solar system’s formation each planet or moon is either in a stage of its evolution or it has completed its evolution. The author’s Theory of Planetary Evolution based on tidal heating shows how the application of physics principles enables us to understand our solar system.

9. Hell, Heaven and Earth - The Blue Planet: The author’s Theory of Planetary Evolution leads the conclusion that the largest terrestrial planet Earth should have the thickest atmosphere and that this atmosphere should be like the atmospheres of Venus and Mars in being primary carbon dioxide. Initially the Earth did have the thickest atmosphere and this atmosphere was primary carbon dioxide. But then life evolved on Earth and this set off a chain of events that led to the atmosphere that we have today. Because of the water on the Earth’s surface and life that evolved in this water, carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere until now nitrogen is the primary component of the Earth’s atmosphere. In support of this position, the Earth is literally covered with mountains of rock solid evidence: the sedimentary carbonate rocks limestone and dolomite that lock up the carbon dioxide that once filled the Earth’s atmosphere.

10. Esker’s Theory of Planetary Evolution: This chapter summarizes the key points of the previous Hell, Heaven, and Earth chapter series explaining the Theory of Planetary Evolution.

11. Rocks and Fossils: Over the last few hundred years, dedicated geologists have gathered evidence and made numerous discoveries; and yet we are still a long ways from having a complete understanding of the history of the Earth.

Rocks and fossils give the rock-hard evidence of the amazing long history of the Earth. Whatever theories we devise and use for understanding this history - the Theory of Evolution, the Geological Laws of Horizontality and Superposition, and the new Theory of Planetary Evolution - must be held accountable to the rock and fossil evidence. Specifically, the Theory of Planetary Evolution makes numerous testable predictions on what we should expect based on whether the Earth was experiencing a warm thick atmosphere climate or an ice age thin atmosphere climate. Furthermore the author shows how the interaction between volcanic activity and the evolution of life produced these changes in the thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. The chapter finishes with a timeline of the Phanerozoic eon that shows how the thickness of the Earth's atmosphere is the key to making sense of the geological evidence.

12. Dinosaurs and Dragonflies: The biological changes that occurred through time are even more interesting than the physical changes. Combining the geological record of mass extinctions, knowledge of when the atmosphere was thick or thin, and applying our understanding of how species evolve produces remarkable insight regarding the major biological events that occurred on this Earth.

13. Spaceship Earth: In the process of greatly increasing our understanding of how the Earth evolved we gain a greater respect for our home. Hopefully mankind will become more thoughtful in considering how our actions affect the health of our planet. Just as centuries ago Galileo gave us a new perspective of the heavens, the Theory of Planetary Evolution forces us to reconsider our beliefs regarding life, who we are, and what we aspire to be.

Comments, Questions, and Answers

Selected comments and questions are given with the permission of the parties involved.

Hello Mr. Esker,

I recently found your website while researching the dinosaur paradox. Luckily, yours was among the first I stumbled upon; it's clear, concise, &, as a result, convincing presentation of your atmospheric solution is much appreciated. My previous, cursory research into the paradox turned up a convoluted mention of an atmospheric element at play, but your in depth analysis ensures that little question remains in my mind on the matter.

I'd simply like to, as the subject stated, thank you, & say: well done. I wish you luck in both current & future pursuits.


Gettysburg College

April 2018


You might mention that while some scientists pooh-pooh your site, none of them provide specifics on exactly what's wrong, such as formula errors or overlooked factors. I all too often see supposed scientists state things which don't even sound right, with no cites, and I can't find anything to back it up, which is all the more important now that an increasing number of studies are being thrown out due to irreproducibility.

January 2018


Hello Mr. Esker,

I am no scientist, but I have a curious and open mind. I came to your page thinking you'd come to the conclusion our laws of physics slowly change with time, which is what I had read elsewhere on the internet, a while ago.. intriguing but far fetched stuff. But you actually have a different, far more logical answer! I loved the read and the awesome conclusion.

April 2017



When I first found your book you had the last few chapters available for sale. My only question is could I purchase the unfinished version?
You have answered the questions I had about square / cubed Law and tied together so much of the fossil record for me.
You have given me confidence when my sons ask me about paleontology and dinosaurs to share your concepts as a possible way these massive creatures could have operated.
You even touch on the 6 foot dragonfly…I could go on.
Your theory provides explanations for phenomena that I had only heard psuedo-science from cheesy Creation scientists and their water canopy or floating sheet of ice theory.
In contrast, your work is succinct, accessible but completely based on science and not fanciful presupposition.
I am a big proponent of your work. I tell anyone in my immediate circle that they need to read what you have available. Personally, I think your theory could have a profound effect on chronology and dating. Certain methods presupposed certain amounts of carbons and atmospherical gases / conditions.
Your thick atmosphere theory, if integrated into dating models could throw the chronologies on their heads. The implications of that potential are very satisfactory to contemplate.
Thank you again for your work.
I feel it is unfortunate that others minds are resistant to the concepts and theories you express.
For me, you answered questions that I had been asking for 10 years+ I am honored by your response,
To Your Success!

November 2016

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your support and thank you for your interest in my book. The book is finished but I have decided to make substantial improvements to it before releasing it. I also plan to add several more topics to the chapters that are already displayed on my website. I hope to have all the chapters up on the website within the next two or three years.

David Esker

Please send an e-mail if you have questions or comments.

Sending mail

Please properly cite DinosaurTheory.com if you use this material.

Square-Cube Law / Dinosaur Paradox / Science of Flight / Search for the Solution
Thick Atmosphere Solution / Biology Revolution / Earth's Heat / Solar System
Blue Planet / Planetary Evolution / Rocks and Fossils
Scientific Theories / David Esker / External Links /
Educational Resources / DinosaurTheory Store