DinosaurTheory Introduction
DinosaurTheory explains how the dinosaurs were able to grow so large, but it is also much more. The large dinosaurs' paradox is just one of numerous scientific paradoxes that have stumped paleontologists and other scientists for the past couple of centuries. For example, beside the paradox of how the dinosaurs grew so large there are also the paradoxes of how the large pterosaurs were able to fly, why there was no ice at the Polar Regions during the Mesozoic era, and how did the Earth ended up with a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere while the planets nearest to it – Venus and Mars – each have an atmosphere that is 96 to 97 percent carbon dioxide. These scientific paradoxes, and many others, exist because the scientists working on these problems fail to realize how much the Earth has evolved over the past billion years. They failed to realize how the presence of water and life on Earth affected Earth’s atmosphere and how this caused Earth to evolve distinctly different from the other terrestrial planets.
The purpose of DinosaurTheory is to present the evidence and explain the theory of how planets have evolved over time, and in particular it explains how the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere has interacted with the evolution of life on this planet. This is a broad theory and as such it requires the reader to have at least a minimum understanding of numerous science disciplines. Since scientific concepts are usually the most difficult aspect about learning science, the reader is encourage to reread sections and check references sources to be certain that they understanding each chapter before moving forward to the next chapter. DinosaurTheory is solid evidence-based science so it may read like a science textbook, yet the reader should find DinosaurTheory much more enlightening than most science textbooks.
The following is a list of many of the major scientific paradoxes and questions that are discussed in DinosaurTheory.
Scientific Paradoxes and Questions
Does Size Matter? – We often enjoy watching science fiction movies, comedies, or B-Rated horror movies that feature animals or people who are much larger or smaller than normal. Not to spoil anyone’s fun but how often do we wonder if this dramatic change from the normal size is actually possible. If there is a restriction on the size of objects and animals, how is it possible that dinosaurs grew so large?
Large Dinosaurs Paradox - Currently African Elephants and Giraffes are pushing the limits of large or tall terrestrial animals can be and yet during the Mesozoic era, 65 to 245 million years ago, dinosaurs grew to being over three time taller and larger than these modern animals. For over two hundred years paleontologists have been trying to solve the paradox of how the dinosaurs grew so large and today they appear to be no closer to solving this problem than when they began.
Why Do Dinosaurs Have Their Unique Form? – While most of the attention tends to focus on the large size of the dinosaurs, there is a tendency to overlook the shape of dinosaurs: nearly all dinosaurs have a strong tail and much larger rear legs than their fore limbs. What is the reason for this? In accordance with the survival of the fittest principle of evolution theory, how did this form enhance these dinosaurs’ ability to either survive or reproduce? The much larger legs would be capable of running much faster if not for the smaller forward legs slowing it down. We might wonder if dinosaurs were hopping like a rabbit or kangaroo except that the configuration of the legs is incorrect for any type of hopping movement. How would it be possible for such a large animal run while using only its rear legs instead of running on all four legs? We might try to explain the strong tail of these dinosaurs by claiming that they used their strong tail to propel themselves through water similar somewhat like an alligator or crocodile, except that the feet of most dinosaurs are not appropriate for an aquatic life; dinosaurs were definitely terrestrial animals.
Flying Pterosaurs Paradox - Pterosaurs were giant flying reptiles that coexisted with the dinosaurs. They were the largest flying animals that ever existed. This fact is even more remarkable when we consider that currently there are no reptiles capable of flight. Physics and aerodynamic equations show that flying is a power intensive activity. These equations also show that the larger the animal is the more relative power that is required to fly. Hence, the animals that have the lowest metabolism and are large in size are the least likely to be able to fly. In our modern world, birds have the highest metabolism and so they are the most capable fliers, bats are warm blooded mammals and so they can fly but they do not grow very large, while reptiles have too low of a metabolism to fly no matter how small they are. There are no experiments or physics equations that could give us hope in believing that pterosaurs could have flown in an environment similar to the present environment.
Nearly Uniform Global Climate Paradox – Paleontologists have found numerous fossils of dinosaurs and temperate vegetation in the Polar Regions thus indication that globally there was far less latitudinal variation in temperature during the Mesozoic era. In addition to this biological evidence, geologists find little if any evidence of glaciation during the Mesozoic era. Paleoclimatologists cannot explain why there was no ice at either the north or the south Polar Regions during the Mesozoic era.
Large Terrestrial Cenozoic Vertebrates Paradox - Dinosaurs were not the only terrestrial animals that grew exceptionally large. Thirty to sixty five million years ago, during the first half of the Cenozoic era, there were several terrestrial mammals that grew much larger than modern animals although not nearly as large as the dinosaurs.
Large Flying Cenozoic Birds Paradox - Six million years ago there was a bird called Argentavis that was similar to the Andean condor and yet it had a wingspan that was two and a half to three times greater. If we go still farther back in time to twenty five million years ago there was an even larger flying bird name Pelagornis sandersi. These animals are a scientific paradox because there is an upper limit on the size of a flying bird. This limit exists because as we go up in size the relative power and strength of the animal decreases while the need for greater relative power is increasing.
Large Flying Mesozoic Birds Paradox - Returning to the Mesozoic era, over the past several decades paleontologists have found numerous fossils of animals with feathers. These feathered animals have numerous features in common with the flying feathered animals of today. Most remarkable is the fact that the fossils all show flight feathers and these flight feathers appear in the correct places to provide balance equilibrium lift for these flying animals. Specifically, these animals had flight feathers on their stiff tails and some even had flight feathers on their hind limbs in order to balance the flight feathers on their fore limbs / wings. The smaller ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are about the size of a crow or large turkey while the larger ones weighed nearly as much as a horse. This is yet another problem for the paleontology community because the evidence has become quite clear in showing that these are not ‘feathered dinosaurs’ but rather they are incredibly large flying birds: birds that would be far to heavy to fly in today’s atmosphere.
Evolution of Flying Vertebrates Paradox - No matter if we are discussion pterosaurs, birds, or bats, the rules of evolution tells us that there is yet another scientific paradox that we need to explain: this is the paradox of how these vertebrates evolved wings for flying. The evolution of a species from one form to another can only be accomplished through a long series of small steps where each of these steps is beneficial throughout the process. In other words, there would have to be some benefit from having partially formed wings for evolution to continue forward with hundreds of more small steps towards fully developed wings. According to the Theory of Evolution and based on the assumption that the Earth’s atmosphere has always been the same low density as what it is today, there is no pathway towards becoming flyers and so none of the vertebrates should have ever been able to evolve the ability to fly.
Why is the Interior of Earth So Hot? – Oddly enough, scientists are still not sure what is warming the interior of Earth. While most geologists are pushing the hypotheses that either left over primordial heat or radioactivity heating is heating Earth’s interior, planetary scientists have rejected these ideas for explaining how Jupiter’s moon Io is being heated. Their conclusion is that tidal forces are heating the interior of Io, and not only that, they are coming around to recognizing that tidal forces warm the interior of most if not all of the planets and moons of our solar system. This includes Earth. If we knew for certain what heats the interior of Earth then we would have a better understanding of continental movements, seismic activity, and volcanic activity that could affect the Earth’s atmosphere.
Why is Earth so Unique? – The numerous scientific paradoxes connected to the Mesozoic era strongly suggest that during this time there was something substantially different about the Earth that scientists have yet to identify. Further confirmation of this belief is the fact that Earth is substantially different from the other planets of the solar system thus suggesting that the Earth has gone through some unique changes. To our knowledge, Earth is the only planet in our solar system where life has evolved. Earth is the only planet that has liquid water on its surface, and furthermore, the composition of Earth’s atmosphere is different from all the other planets. The large outer planets all have an atmosphere that primarily consist of hydrogen and helium, while the terrestrial planets in orbits on either side of the Earth – Venus and Mars – each have an atmosphere that is primarily carbon dioxide with a small percentage of nitrogen. Earth is the only planet with a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere.
If not for the evolution of life on Earth,
Earth's atmosphere would be similar to Venus' atmosphere.
Revolutionary Science
The Scientific Paradoxes and Questions listed above are not random science paradoxes but instead they are major scientific problems that are all solved by one simply insightful solution. To give a quick explanation of this solution we could start with one or more of the problems facing the paleontologist such as the large dinosaurs, the flying pterosaurs, or the unique shape of the dinosaurs, but actually a better approach is to explain this solution based on planetary science.
The application of physics principles allows us to explain why the large outer planets of our solar system primary consist of the light hydrogen and helium gasses, while the atmospheres of the terrestrial planets that are closer to the Sun are typically about 96% carbon dioxide. We can also apply physics and the correct theory of how heat is generated within planets to understand the vast differences in the thickness of these planet’s atmospheres. It makes sense that Venus’s atmosphere is ten thousand times thicker then the atmosphere of Mars. Likewise it would make sense for the larger and more geologically active Earth should have a carbon dioxide atmosphere similar to Venus’ atmosphere, only much thicker. So why it is that Earth does not have an extremely thick carbon dioxide atmosphere today?
What happened to Earth that its atmosphere is now so different from the other terrestrial planets? Two words: water and life. The greater geological activity on Earth and Earth’s distance from the Sun placed water on its surface and from this water sprung life. Both water and life played a role in removing nearly all of the carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere while life played its role in adding oxygen. It’s a beautifully simple and scientifically sound theory: removing carbon dioxide and adding oxygen was essentially all that was required to make Earth’s atmosphere dramatically different from its neighbors, and the realization that the Earth previously had a much thicker atmosphere is all that it takes to explain all of the scientific paradoxes listed above.
Let us take a moment to consider how often mankind has had difficulty in understanding Earth. Less than a millennium ago most people were still unaware that the Earth is a sphere; it was less than two centuries ago when scientists were still unaware that the continents are moving, and even today a large portion of the population still holds the false belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Why should we be surprised that most people make the wrong assumptions about the Earth’s atmosphere? Most people have never given a moment of thought about where the Earth’s atmosphere came from or if there is a physical limit to how thick a planet’s atmosphere may be, and yet these same people can be extremely closed minded when it comes to imagining that the Earth’s atmosphere could be different from what it is today. Science should not be held back by the limitations of these peoples’ imagination: the evidence is overwhelming in indicating that millions of years ago the Earth’s atmosphere was hundreds of times thicker than what it is today.
It is astonishing how much evidence was pushed to the side by scientists who lacked the imagination to understand what it meant. Look again at the list of Scientific Paradoxes and Questions and notice how an extremely thick atmosphere solves all of them. The thick atmosphere supplied the upward buoyancy that allowed the dinosaurs to grow so large. The unique shape of dinosaurs now finally makes sense because this is the shape that a terrestrial animal would have if were trying to move quickly through a thick fluid. Next, we no longer need to wonder how giant reptiles were able to fly because an extremely thick air made it so easy for almost any animal to fly. Why was it much warmer at the Polar Regions during the Mesozoic era? The answer is simple because the much thicker Mesozoic atmosphere was much more efficient at transferring heat by convection current. And so on! The number of major scientific paradoxes solved and the insight that is gained through this new understand of how the Earth evolved is truly breathtaking. DinosaurTheory replaces incorrect beliefs regarding the Earth with a revolutionary theory of how the planets of our solar system evolved.
Realize that while many of the concepts presented in DinosaurTheory may be new to the reader, if not for the 'sad state of science today', these concepts would already be standard lessons in every elementary science class. Yes, this is revolutionary science, and yet at the same time, this is conservative science; science firmly based on physics principles that draw logical conclusions based on the evidence. Anyone with a strong understanding of physics, and an interest in geology and other science disciplines can easily check the evidence and verify the mathematics.
David EskerM.S. Physics
College Physics Instructor
Resolution of the Large Dinosaur Paradox
Science of Flight Equations
Theory of Planetary Evolution
Author of DinosaurTheory
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.
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.
Cheers,
Trevor
Gettysburg College
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.
Greetings,
Amber
David,
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!
Jesse
Please send an e-mail if you have questions or comments
Good day Mr. Esker.
Some weeks ago, I was reading your extremely interesting and thought provoking website: https://www.dinosaurtheory.com/
My reaction was very similar to "Holy ----! What a stunning concept! Could this be true?" My mind was seriously challenged. I will be reading and rereading your website again, every so often. Please keep up the fine work.
Jerry