| Paleogravity: how radical is it? |
| by Duff Smith |
Copyright 2009 by Duff Smith
THE OTHER ADVOCATES OF THIS THEORY
About the Author
Thanks to the following individuals for their feedback and helpful
criticism:
criticism:
Charles Meyer, B.S., Geologist
Stephen W. Bullington, Ph. D., Consulting Entomologist
Dan Benson, scholar
Joff Rolland, scholar
Michael Howorth, scholar
Stephen W. Bullington, Ph. D., Consulting Entomologist
Dan Benson, scholar
Joff Rolland, scholar
Michael Howorth, scholar
Sources Used
Bakker, Robert, Ph. D. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing Corp, 1986.
Boslough, John. "Searching for the Secrets of Gravity." National Geographic May 1989: 562-583
Boslough, John. "Searching for the Secrets of Gravity." National Geographic May 1989: 562-583
| While studying at Purdue, I took a personal interest in exobiology. I recalled a film strip presentation my fourth grade teacher, Mrs Wrobel gave about the planets of our solar system. The medium was the 1982 equivalent of Powerpoint; she cranked the film frame-by-frame while an audiocasette played, narrating and sounding a tone to signal each advance. One of them looked like this: |
| Whatever you think of |
| Expanding Earth Theory, |
| Mesozoic surface gravity |
| cannot be ignored. |
| I have another take on why |
| the evidence for lower |
life on Earth in terms of its gravitational definition. Terrestrial life certainly has that, no
matter how constant it seems. Its signature is all over the living things we know. If our gravity
were different, so would be everything that lives in it.
matter how constant it seems. Its signature is all over the living things we know. If our gravity
were different, so would be everything that lives in it.
The narrator speculated on what people would have to look like if they lived on habitable
planets with the surface gravity of the Moon or Jupiter as compared to Earth. It was a fun,
creative way to entice a young audience to remember a little basic information. Or, perhaps
wildly irresponsible as the recollection of a college-age bio student was sent into flights of
fancy as he realized something the educators had missed. The author of a National
Geographic article on gravity that I had read more recently (May1989) also missed it:
planets with the surface gravity of the Moon or Jupiter as compared to Earth. It was a fun,
creative way to entice a young audience to remember a little basic information. Or, perhaps
wildly irresponsible as the recollection of a college-age bio student was sent into flights of
fancy as he realized something the educators had missed. The author of a National
Geographic article on gravity that I had read more recently (May1989) also missed it:
| "I like to envision a species of humanoids that, having evolved on the moon with one-sixth Earth's gravity, are double our height but too spindly to play basketball. On Jupiter, which has 318 times Earth's mass, they might look like pancakes with short legs." -- John Boslough |
I thought, "Sure a lower-gravity humanoid might be taller. But spindly? Why spindly?"
Boslough's proposed higher-gravity humanoids also struck me as problematic. I went to
one of the grad students who taught my biology lab, a fellow named Bruce. "I would think
that a higher-gravity animal would have to be heavily muscled," he said.
I thought to myself, "Why heavy?"
Boslough's proposed higher-gravity humanoids also struck me as problematic. I went to
one of the grad students who taught my biology lab, a fellow named Bruce. "I would think
that a higher-gravity animal would have to be heavily muscled," he said.
I thought to myself, "Why heavy?"
A new euphemism: "Overweight" people simply have lower-gravity characteristics!
Then I recalled a trilogy of science fiction novels I read from a British author named John
Christopher. The alien invaders in his story were from a higher-gravity planet, and their
bodies were big and strong. "Why big?" I thought.
I can see where the idea comes from. Lower gravity would not require as much muscle,
right? It wouldn't require as much bone, would it? But if you're talking about something that
evolved in different gravity (not migrated from 1G Earth), is that what nature would really do?
Christopher. The alien invaders in his story were from a higher-gravity planet, and their
bodies were big and strong. "Why big?" I thought.
I can see where the idea comes from. Lower gravity would not require as much muscle,
right? It wouldn't require as much bone, would it? But if you're talking about something that
evolved in different gravity (not migrated from 1G Earth), is that what nature would really do?
Why, nature wouldn't even do that if a human did
migrate from 1 G Earth to... say, a domed city on the
Moon that will hopefully exist any century now. When
and if such cities do exist, overweight people will
probably enjoy retirement there.
migrate from 1 G Earth to... say, a domed city on the
Moon that will hopefully exist any century now. When
and if such cities do exist, overweight people will
probably enjoy retirement there.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, to anyone out there who has read my little "undergraduate
thesis," I would like to extend my sincere thanks... and my email for
anyone who wishes to give me feedback.
thesis," I would like to extend my sincere thanks... and my email for
anyone who wishes to give me feedback.
I ask for anybody and everybody's help and feedback on the
dinosaur topic. If my life ever settles just a little, I'll devote a lot more
time to catching up on other authors besides Bakker ("Gwangi!")
I am most interested in learning more about the paleogravity theorists
from a century ago, from the time when contemporary geology was
just getting off the ground. (Some would say it left me waving and
yelling, "You forgot me!")
dinosaur topic. If my life ever settles just a little, I'll devote a lot more
time to catching up on other authors besides Bakker ("Gwangi!")
I am most interested in learning more about the paleogravity theorists
from a century ago, from the time when contemporary geology was
just getting off the ground. (Some would say it left me waving and
yelling, "You forgot me!")
In case this site hits it big somehow, putting the word "dinosaur" in
the subject line will help me keep it all straight. Of course, leave out
the words "Nigerian Lottery."
the subject line will help me keep it all straight. Of course, leave out
the words "Nigerian Lottery."
| Here are some links to online dinosaur discussions that I've participated in: |
I met my
greatest
critics at:
greatest
critics at:
New Science Headlines that Support this Hypothesis
While pursuing an evolutionary biology
degree at Purdue in 1990, I began thinking about
degree at Purdue in 1990, I began thinking about
Already I might be accused of heading down some wildly speculative, irresponsible road.
But it certainly wasn't considered irresponsible when dinosaur fossils were first displayed in the
US, and the science of vertebrate paleontology began slipping into a decades-long orthodoxy
that the giant beasts were confined to the neutral buoyancy of swamp water to support their
huge body mass.
But it certainly wasn't considered irresponsible when dinosaur fossils were first displayed in the
US, and the science of vertebrate paleontology began slipping into a decades-long orthodoxy
that the giant beasts were confined to the neutral buoyancy of swamp water to support their
huge body mass.
In the defense of those generations of learned men, there was some kind of basis for the
case of swamp-bound dinosaurs. They were downright big! You know, all life would like to be
that big.
case of swamp-bound dinosaurs. They were downright big! You know, all life would like to be
that big.
the world just isn't one big swamp anymore.
Yes, there was a time long ago before dinosaur skeletons were mounted with legs splayed far
out to the sides like lizards. Science was on the right track earlier on. If I could recover a few
deleted posts from my paleogravity news group, I could name the early paleontologists who
first proposed a look at gravity itself as a possible variable environmental factor through
geologic time. I suppose finishing my degree at Purdue would have helped me know where to
look, since (to date) it's not in Wikipedia either. More lately, scientists have come to accept
that the dinos definitely fulfilled the role of large land animals in their time. But instead of
re-examining the gravity question, they argue about how many pounds of dino meat those old
bones possibly could have hung, whether diplodocus could have reared up to feed on a tree
top, and how huge the hearts of brachiosaurs would have to be to pump blood all the way up
their unquestionably vertical necks.
Yes, there was a time long ago before dinosaur skeletons were mounted with legs splayed far
out to the sides like lizards. Science was on the right track earlier on. If I could recover a few
deleted posts from my paleogravity news group, I could name the early paleontologists who
first proposed a look at gravity itself as a possible variable environmental factor through
geologic time. I suppose finishing my degree at Purdue would have helped me know where to
look, since (to date) it's not in Wikipedia either. More lately, scientists have come to accept
that the dinos definitely fulfilled the role of large land animals in their time. But instead of
re-examining the gravity question, they argue about how many pounds of dino meat those old
bones possibly could have hung, whether diplodocus could have reared up to feed on a tree
top, and how huge the hearts of brachiosaurs would have to be to pump blood all the way up
their unquestionably vertical necks.
I've been surprised at the large following of the "expanding earth" hypothesis, because that
strikes me as discordant with the basic conservation of matter. I suggest something more
plausible: that the mass of the earth has remained stable, but that the planet has shrunk as the
core has cooled over time. I don't think that's even refuted by scientists; if the earth congealed
from hot dust, then it stands to reason that it's cooler -- and smaller -- now than it was in the
beginning.
strikes me as discordant with the basic conservation of matter. I suggest something more
plausible: that the mass of the earth has remained stable, but that the planet has shrunk as the
core has cooled over time. I don't think that's even refuted by scientists; if the earth congealed
from hot dust, then it stands to reason that it's cooler -- and smaller -- now than it was in the
beginning.
"Dinosaurs appear to have been too heavy to walk on land." That is still as factual a
statement as it was before Dr. Robert Bakker published The Dinosaur Heresies in 1985 -- as
long as I retain the word appear in that sentence. Of course they were land animals. The
appearance that they were too heavy is, well... it conjures the old adage that "appearances
can be deceiving."
...Right?
statement as it was before Dr. Robert Bakker published The Dinosaur Heresies in 1985 -- as
long as I retain the word appear in that sentence. Of course they were land animals. The
appearance that they were too heavy is, well... it conjures the old adage that "appearances
can be deceiving."
...Right?
Here's another factual statement for which I may not yet be branded, because it's virtually
equivalent to the first and likewise contains the word appear; I have not made a single
laughable claim yet: "Dinosaurs appear to have been lower-gravity land animals."
equivalent to the first and likewise contains the word appear; I have not made a single
laughable claim yet: "Dinosaurs appear to have been lower-gravity land animals."
I like writing on my own web page as a communication medium, because I don't have to
listen to a lot of "But... but... but.." and "Hey you can't say that" and "where are your
academic credentials." Go dig up Gregory Mendel's bones and say insulting things about his
pea plants, buster! Because he was just a monk, but that didn't stop him from figuring out big
stuff.
listen to a lot of "But... but... but.." and "Hey you can't say that" and "where are your
academic credentials." Go dig up Gregory Mendel's bones and say insulting things about his
pea plants, buster! Because he was just a monk, but that didn't stop him from figuring out big
stuff.
I'm actually not proposing that earth's mass changed for the purpose of calculating its path
of orbit around the sun, or the path of the our moon around the Earth. What you can learn
from the Wikipedia entry for earth's gravity is that the measure of its force is determined by
your distance from the center of the planet you're standing on. It's a function of the square of
the distance, in fact. By cooling and shrinking, a planet's surface would not have to come as
much closer to its center as you might think to produce a noticeable increase. A reduction to
half the original size would increase surface gravity by a factor of four. I'm not proposing
anything that scary.
of orbit around the sun, or the path of the our moon around the Earth. What you can learn
from the Wikipedia entry for earth's gravity is that the measure of its force is determined by
your distance from the center of the planet you're standing on. It's a function of the square of
the distance, in fact. By cooling and shrinking, a planet's surface would not have to come as
much closer to its center as you might think to produce a noticeable increase. A reduction to
half the original size would increase surface gravity by a factor of four. I'm not proposing
anything that scary.
An earth only 300 miles larger in radius during the Mesozoic would have had 25% less
gravity than today. Or from a lower-gravity dinosaur's point of view, a 300-mile contraction
would increase its gravity by a third. I'm not saying the contraction was even that big. But, it
doesn't take as big a contraction as a lot of people think to cause a gravity difference large
enough to impact the course of evolution.
gravity than today. Or from a lower-gravity dinosaur's point of view, a 300-mile contraction
would increase its gravity by a third. I'm not saying the contraction was even that big. But, it
doesn't take as big a contraction as a lot of people think to cause a gravity difference large
enough to impact the course of evolution.
Besides, I don't even need to argue that dinosaurs were too heavy to walk on land to make
my point, unless I argue as a catastrophist; that is, trying to argue that an increase in gravity
(like the Yucatan asteroid) killed dinosaurs very suddenly. No, paleogravity extinction better
matches with the slower extinction model. It has long been found that the species diversity was
dwindling in the millions of years leading up to the impact, and debates about the causation of
this slower die-off rage on today. A recent fossil find in southern India from just about the end
of the Mesozoic was of a series of dinosaur nests laid one on top of another in layers, all
unhatched. Here was the point in the dinosaur life cycle at which the mighty beasts were at
their most vulnerable.
my point, unless I argue as a catastrophist; that is, trying to argue that an increase in gravity
(like the Yucatan asteroid) killed dinosaurs very suddenly. No, paleogravity extinction better
matches with the slower extinction model. It has long been found that the species diversity was
dwindling in the millions of years leading up to the impact, and debates about the causation of
this slower die-off rage on today. A recent fossil find in southern India from just about the end
of the Mesozoic was of a series of dinosaur nests laid one on top of another in layers, all
unhatched. Here was the point in the dinosaur life cycle at which the mighty beasts were at
their most vulnerable.
| Did the extinctions begin millions of years before the iridium layer was laid down, or did they happen suddenly, precisely at the time of the alleged cosmic collision? To answer this question it is important to remember that both genera and species of dinosaur had been dying out all through the Cretaceous -- all through the Mesozoic, in fact. What made the final Cretaceous extinctions so special is that no new wave of species appeared to replace those that died out. In one sense, that is the essential point of all mass extinctions -- the rates of extinction outpace the production of new species, so whole groups simply run out of species entirely. |
Although Robert Bakker has never endorsed my views as far as I know, I found this
excerpt from page 436 of Dinosaur Heresies that applies well:
excerpt from page 436 of Dinosaur Heresies that applies well:
I propose that it wouldn't take a sudden or extreme increase in gravity to interfere with the
rate of reproductive success of dinosaurs against other animals. I have more particular points to
make in support of that, but first: How could any increase of gravity have occurred, since
gravity is a function of a planet's mass (which has not changed)?
rate of reproductive success of dinosaurs against other animals. I have more particular points to
make in support of that, but first: How could any increase of gravity have occurred, since
gravity is a function of a planet's mass (which has not changed)?
I'm sure the asteroid impact did occur, and so did an episode of extreme volcanism on the
opposite side of the earth at approximately the same time. But rather than being the main cause
of the extinction, I would agree with the gradualist paleontologists that events like these were
more likely the grand finale for a group of animals that were already on the way out.
opposite side of the earth at approximately the same time. But rather than being the main cause
of the extinction, I would agree with the gradualist paleontologists that events like these were
more likely the grand finale for a group of animals that were already on the way out.
- Higher gravity explains why the largest egg layers
ever to exist (dinosaurs) are no more. Hatching large eggs
is tricky for animals even today. Those that do not need to be
turned over often throughout their development (like bird eggs)
will instead need to be buried with soil pressure on all sides (like
reptiles) -- while still getting enough gas exchange through the shell.
- The largest trees today (sequoyas and redwoods)
evolved in the Jurassic.
- The longer-necked sauropods died out at the end of
the Jurassic in a remarkably similar extinction to the
later one that finished all dinosaurs.
- The Mesozoic atmosphere had a higher percentage of
oxygen-to-nitrogen, oxygen being the heavier gas.
That's the change in ratio you would expect. Jupiter's higher
gravity enables it to retain hydrogen in its atmosphere. Mars' lower
gravity means it can only hold heavy carbon dioxide.
- The Mesozoic had larger bipedal walkers.
- Dinosaurs have had the chance to re-evolve from
extant birds or crocodiles, but didn't. Vegetarian
crocodiles, panzer crocs, elephant birds and other giant birds hung
on only in isolated places since the dinosaur age. They never
successfully gained a foothold in the placental mammal world.
- Birds. Was their exceptional design for flight (and their assumed
highest strength-to-mass ratio) completely incidental to the fact
that they survive yet today, and now poop on our cars with a
diversity of species exceeding the mammals?
- Crocodilians. They were semi-aquatic, so they could escape to
the neutral buoyancy of fresh water.
- Explains the force behind continental drift. The
continents pushed apart in order to balance their weight toward
opposite sides of the globe, beginning when? The end of the
Mesozoic, of course.
- Simultaneous disruption of marine ecosystems. Life in
the ocean is organized in layers based on the diminishment of
light, the decrease of temperature and the increase of water
pressure as depth increases. Also, the gravity-driven ocean
currents that move the saltier, heavier water downward and fresh
water upward would change, as well as the volcanism that supplies
the salt to the ocean.
"How did
you think of
this stuff?"
you think of
this stuff?"
FAQ:
There's an economy of scale that applies in terms of
metabolism, and defense against predators and
competitors. Taller herbivores can reach higher into
the trees. But just as surely as a bigger water balloon
is more likely to break, animals are less spry the
larger up the body mass scale you care to look. It
was tempting to think the dinosaurs died out because
metabolism, and defense against predators and
competitors. Taller herbivores can reach higher into
the trees. But just as surely as a bigger water balloon
is more likely to break, animals are less spry the
larger up the body mass scale you care to look. It
was tempting to think the dinosaurs died out because
The fact that it is easier for a massive organism to move in lower gravity simply means to
Mother Nature that she can get out her drafting paper and design something bigger. Gravity's
greatest challengers in the animal kingdom would probably challenge it harder, in whatever
manner they already do at 1G. At the very least, we would see a shift in superlatives: the
largest animal that can evolve at a certain gravity level will not be as large as the largest that
can evolve in less gravity.
Mother Nature that she can get out her drafting paper and design something bigger. Gravity's
greatest challengers in the animal kingdom would probably challenge it harder, in whatever
manner they already do at 1G. At the very least, we would see a shift in superlatives: the
largest animal that can evolve at a certain gravity level will not be as large as the largest that
can evolve in less gravity.
| The Quick List: __ points that support my hypothesis. |
10
We categorize animals as one or the other. We notice in the animal kingdom that mammals
and birds have high metabolisms and body temperatures, and eat whatever calories they need
to keep their metabolic furnaces properly stoked. Reptiles, fish and invertebrates are different
-- they keep from having to burn all those calories by moving between cold and warm spots to
keep their bodies at the temperature they need.
There's plusses and minuses to each metabolic strategy. Warm-blooded animals can
conduct their activities in a range of environmental temperatures. But they have to eat more
consistently, especially to keep their body temperature high when the environment is cold.
Cold-bloods can use the environment to thermoregulate and avoid having to eat so much,
but when the weather gets cold they must stop their activities and hide underground. On the
other hand, they may handle a drop in body temperature well when a warm-blooded animal
would get hypothermia. They can go dormant when most warm-bloods cannot.
I propose that the words, "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" be tossed out the window.
There must be better words to describe these basic metabolic strategies. For one thing, there is
at least one animal that blurs the distinction between the two -- leatherbacks, the largest of the
sea turtles. Their large size gives them a lower ratio of skin surface area to body volume.
Because of this, they don't lose heat as fast as smaller reptiles (That's also why smaller
mammals tend to have faster metabolisms: to stay warm). So, the fact that scientists have
found that leatherbacks maintain a higher body temperature than their surrounding environment
can't be so surprising. For a big cold-blooded animal, mass homeothermy (slower loss of
internal heat due to large body size) just makes it easy. And still, their metabolism is a shining
reptilian model of high efficiency. Many paleontologists agree that dinosaurs must have done
the same thing. I'd like to point out that the one reptile today to possess this relic metabolic
strategy just happens to live in the neutral buoyancy of sea water.
So, before we go inventing a term like "lukewarm-blooded" to describe what leatherbacks
and dinosaurs fall into, I have something better: "warm-bloods" are "bio-energy controllers."
"Cold-bloods" are "biomass owners."
"Warm-blooded" animals are most properly characterized by two things regardless of body
temperature: (1) The large amount of food they consume relative to their body weight, and (2)
their low contribution to the total animal biomass within a given ecosystem.
"Cold-blooded" animals are best defined by: (1) lower food requirements relative to their
body weight, and (2) a larger proportion of the total animal weight when all animals in a given
area are collected and weighed.
To better explain the number twos in both above paragraphs, if you rounded up all the
animals in a square mile of fo est and weighed them, this is what you'd get:
and birds have high metabolisms and body temperatures, and eat whatever calories they need
to keep their metabolic furnaces properly stoked. Reptiles, fish and invertebrates are different
-- they keep from having to burn all those calories by moving between cold and warm spots to
keep their bodies at the temperature they need.
There's plusses and minuses to each metabolic strategy. Warm-blooded animals can
conduct their activities in a range of environmental temperatures. But they have to eat more
consistently, especially to keep their body temperature high when the environment is cold.
Cold-bloods can use the environment to thermoregulate and avoid having to eat so much,
but when the weather gets cold they must stop their activities and hide underground. On the
other hand, they may handle a drop in body temperature well when a warm-blooded animal
would get hypothermia. They can go dormant when most warm-bloods cannot.
I propose that the words, "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" be tossed out the window.
There must be better words to describe these basic metabolic strategies. For one thing, there is
at least one animal that blurs the distinction between the two -- leatherbacks, the largest of the
sea turtles. Their large size gives them a lower ratio of skin surface area to body volume.
Because of this, they don't lose heat as fast as smaller reptiles (That's also why smaller
mammals tend to have faster metabolisms: to stay warm). So, the fact that scientists have
found that leatherbacks maintain a higher body temperature than their surrounding environment
can't be so surprising. For a big cold-blooded animal, mass homeothermy (slower loss of
internal heat due to large body size) just makes it easy. And still, their metabolism is a shining
reptilian model of high efficiency. Many paleontologists agree that dinosaurs must have done
the same thing. I'd like to point out that the one reptile today to possess this relic metabolic
strategy just happens to live in the neutral buoyancy of sea water.
So, before we go inventing a term like "lukewarm-blooded" to describe what leatherbacks
and dinosaurs fall into, I have something better: "warm-bloods" are "bio-energy controllers."
"Cold-bloods" are "biomass owners."
"Warm-blooded" animals are most properly characterized by two things regardless of body
temperature: (1) The large amount of food they consume relative to their body weight, and (2)
their low contribution to the total animal biomass within a given ecosystem.
"Cold-blooded" animals are best defined by: (1) lower food requirements relative to their
body weight, and (2) a larger proportion of the total animal weight when all animals in a given
area are collected and weighed.
To better explain the number twos in both above paragraphs, if you rounded up all the
animals in a square mile of fo est and weighed them, this is what you'd get:
| Cold or warm-blooded? That has been the question... |
These studies have been done, and if I could remember where I read about this I would
cite it. If anyone else remembers, please email me. This illustration isn't just true, it's
staggeringly true. The supposed dominance of mammals in the natural world only applies to the
amount of calories they consume and burn. By weight, number of species, or population
numbers, cold blooded animals exceed hands-down.
cite it. If anyone else remembers, please email me. This illustration isn't just true, it's
staggeringly true. The supposed dominance of mammals in the natural world only applies to the
amount of calories they consume and burn. By weight, number of species, or population
numbers, cold blooded animals exceed hands-down.
Now, I'm pretty sure nobody's ever said this before: Warm-blooded bio-energy controllers
compete when they stand still as well as when they are in motion. Cold-blooded biomass
owners compete mainly when they are in motion.
compete when they stand still as well as when they are in motion. Cold-blooded biomass
owners compete mainly when they are in motion.
Warm-bloods compete even while in a state of motionlessness. Their high metabolisms are
burning calories that animal X did not get. They are also more cognitive; their brains are larger,
and they actually think and decide how to go into motion before they do -- certainly moreso
than cold-bloods, by and large. It so happens that larger brains are another big evolutionary
trend since the Mesozoic.
burning calories that animal X did not get. They are also more cognitive; their brains are larger,
and they actually think and decide how to go into motion before they do -- certainly moreso
than cold-bloods, by and large. It so happens that larger brains are another big evolutionary
trend since the Mesozoic.
To come to the point of this particular section, here's the glaring question that all
paleontologists struggle to answer: Why, during the Mesozoic, were there so many large
cold-blooded biomass owners running around? Why did they dominate earth's landscape for
120 million years, but refuse to re-invent themselves today? Because when scientists can
answer that, they will probably have the answer to what really killed them.
paleontologists struggle to answer: Why, during the Mesozoic, were there so many large
cold-blooded biomass owners running around? Why did they dominate earth's landscape for
120 million years, but refuse to re-invent themselves today? Because when scientists can
answer that, they will probably have the answer to what really killed them.
The answer is because I'm right: gravity was less. Cold-blooded, biomass-owning,
motion-based competitors dominated a lower-gravity Mesozoic because during that time,
motility and locomotion were less costly.
motion-based competitors dominated a lower-gravity Mesozoic because during that time,
motility and locomotion were less costly.
Thank you for reading my little thesis! My
paleogravity ideas have been incorporated into
a debut novel by D. C. Agar. This is a
fantastic novel that you'll enjoy even if you
never read novels, and especially if you like
some science in your science fiction. A little
fringe theory on the side, nicely presented...
Now that's entertainment!
paleogravity ideas have been incorporated into
a debut novel by D. C. Agar. This is a
fantastic novel that you'll enjoy even if you
never read novels, and especially if you like
some science in your science fiction. A little
fringe theory on the side, nicely presented...
Now that's entertainment!
Available
at
Amazon
at
Amazon
In case a few excerpts from the previous rehash of my page will help clarify any of my points
for anyone, a supplement to this page is available by clicking here.
for anyone, a supplement to this page is available by clicking here.
Why Ostriches Can't Fly
Many modern large flightless birds lost their flying ability independently at
approximately the time of the K-T
Many modern large flightless birds lost their flying ability independently at
approximately the time of the K-T