A New Spin

A New Spin (cont'd)

10. Where is the proof?

Should humans ever undertake space travel a' la Star Trek, they may come across a scorched dinosaur floating in space which would constitute the ultimate confirmation of the above scenario. In the mean time, it can only be used as a topic of a science-fiction story.

There is, however, a shorter prospect for proving (or disproving) this theory. In order to visualize it we need to examine more closely the encounter outlined above and appreciate the fact that it would have caused not only a change in spin, but in all likelihood, a change in the axis of rotation as well. Hence, It would have established a new equator and new poles.

The rationale is as follows: The earth was modeled above as a two-dimensional flat wheel (perhaps something like a bicycle-wheel). The reality is that the earth is a three-dimensional sphere, more like a playground ball than a bicycle-wheel. Also the trajectory of the body which zoomed by can be modeled by a vector having three components corresponding to a three-dimensional space. Although this trajectory was basically aligned with the earth's rotation and indeed pointed in the opposite direction, it was in all likelihood, pointing also sideways however slightly. This would have been globe

enough to cause the ball to flip on its side and, therefore, make it spin on a different axis as well as with a different speed of rotation.

The scenario of the trajectory having a small diversion from a perfect alignment is by far more likely to happen than a perfect alignment with no sideways component.

In order to test the validity of this theory the following steps need to be taken. First, all the locations where the remains of the biggest animals (either predators or plant-eaters) were discovered are marked on a globe. Next, a straight line is drawn throug all these marked points. The line should go around the globe and close on itself. This line outlines the [old] equator which was in place before the onset of the catastrophic event described above. Accordingly, the [old] axis of rotation and the [old] poles were perpendicular to the drawn line.

Such a line could tentatively be drawn from Australia through India, passing Europe, going through the Atlantic ocean to Argentina and from there passing by Antarctica back to Australia. This would possibly outline the [old] equator. While it may explain how dinosaur remains were found in polar regions, it misses locations such as in the USA where large animal remains were found. The remoteness of these locations from the [old] equator could perhaps be due to continental drifts or, the findings in these locations will turn out to be after all, of animals not as large as originally thought.

Alternatively, the line could be drawn from Argentina passing through Oklahoma in the U.S. and from there through Alberta in Canada (places which are known for their dinosaur findings.) The line continuous along the West cost of the Pacific Ocean and through Japan to Australia. From there, it goes through Antarctica and back to Argentina. Alas, this option leaves India somewhat in the 'cold' to say nothing of Egypt which is too close to the pole for comfort (there have been findings of big animals reported in both of these places.)

It would conceivably be possible to draw the equator differently in order to accommodate all the locations in question with the proper compensation for continental drifts or final determination of the weight of the biggest animals found in these locations.

globe

For the next step of the test secondary concentric lines need to be drawn parallel to the [old] equator progressively toward the [old] poles. The first two of these lines next to the [old] equator, the one to the [old] north and the one to the [old] south, should join locations where the biggest animals found were not as large as those found at the equator itself. As more such lines are drawn, away from the [old] equator, each successive line should intercept locations where the biggest animals were smaller than at the preceding one. This process ends at a point where the biggest animal remains found is of a size comparable to that of a contemporary elephant. The rationale for this process is as follows.

The centrifugal force which was in the past a major factor in determining the weight (equal to approximately 95 percent of the gravitational force) was at its maximum only at the equator and rapidly diminished toward the poles. Consequently, the weight along the latitude-lines increased just as fast which accordingly, allowed for only smaller and smaller animals progressively north and south away from the equator. As for an animal of the size of an elephant, we already know it can manage well without much help from any centrifugal force.

author

This last step, as well as the first, are left, however, as an exercise for the reader. (Translation: The author of this blurb has no idea how one might actually go about it.)

If you decided to carry out the test and tackle these issues, great! You stand to win no matter what.

Well, did the distribution of animal remains pan out? Good show! You won. You just proved the theory. It didn't work out? You still win, since you managed to prove that the whole thing is baloney. You've got to admit though that a fast spinning earth provides a great way to lose weight. Beats going on any diet! There is just one more thing left for you to do in this case.

Next: What is there left to do?

i. 'What is this?'

ii. --The short answer:

iii. --The long answer:

iv. For the impatient:

v. 'What is next then?'

1. The bigger they are ...

2. Is there a limit to growth?

3. Not convinced yet? What does rate have to do with it?

4. Why aren't any such big animals alive today?

5. What, then, made it possible for them to take their place in the earth's history?

6. But aren't weight and size one and the same?

7. Are we talking change in gravity, then?