The Earth had less mass then, yes? OR ARE YOU ALL DOUBTING THE CANSECO AGAIN???!!

The Earth had less mass then, yes? OR ARE YOU ALL DOUBTING THE CANSECO AGAIN???!!

Of course. They didn't have steroids then, bro. Earth had sissy girl arms in the Jurassic.

Of course. They didn't have steroids then, bro. Earth had sissy girl arms in the Jurassic.

T-Rex needed some of the clear.

The Expanding Earth Theory says he might be right, or at least not completely wrong.

At least he is attempting to think. Much better than 40% of the U.S. that believes in moronic design.

I would rather have those rants going off in schools than a young earth theory. At least there is a logical component being applied here.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, he ain’t.

He ain't even Mike Tyson.

Stands to reason. The earth has gotten 10,000 tons heavier in just the last week.

Earth is in the best shape of its career.

Stands to reason. The earth has gotten 10,000 tons heavier in just the last week.

Well done.

This comes less than a month after he tweeted "Our past has the heaviest gravity clowns."

I'm so tired of all these retired ballplayers claiming gravity was weaker a long time ago and that today's gravity must be all hyped up on PEDs.

This series of tweets was fantastic. I love the part where he says... "I may not be 100% right but think about it. How else could 30 foot leather birds fly?"

this is what twitter was made for.

I'm so tired of all these retired ballplayers

Oh AG#1F ... -1 meme points

I have noticed that the gravitational field is exceptionally strong around my bed in the morning. It's a miracle I can get up at all.

Much better than 40% of the U.S. that believes in moronic design.

Or the 99% of people who believe made-up stats.

The Expanding Earth Theory says he might be right, or at least not completely wrong.

Huh? If the earth were smaller back then than it is now, but presumably the same mass, then surface gravity back then would have been greater than now, not weaker.

This series of tweets was fantastic. I love the part where he says... "I may not be 100% right but think about it. How else could 30 foot leather birds fly?"

I'll take a lot of abuse from this world, but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone attack the integrity of the quetzalcoatlus. #### you Jose Canseco!

Or the 99% of people who believe made-up stats.

I don't know if you were talking about this as a made up stat.

Huh? If the earth were smaller back then than it is now, but presumably the same mass, then surface gravity back then would have been greater than now, not weaker.

Maybe he doesn't believe in linear time, either.

I have noticed that the gravitational field is exceptionally strong around my bed in the morning. It's a miracle I can get up at all.

The fields on the uphill sides of hiking trails are much stronger than just ten years ago. Or five years ago. Or last year.

Gravity had to be weaker to make dinosaurs nimble

Dinosaurs couldn't go to their left.

Dinosaurs couldn't go to their left.

If that is true, then why is Jeter's range so limited?

How else could 30 foot leather birds fly

Duh, the atmosphere has been decreasing in overall density and viscosity for eons. Why do you think nobody throws a screwball anymore?

The Expanding Earth Theory says he might be right, or at least not completely wrong.

Huh? If the earth were smaller back then than it is now, but presumably the same mass, then surface gravity back then would have been greater than now, not weaker.

Depends on which Expanding Earth Theory you're talking about. From Wikipedia:

There are 3 forms of the expanding earth hypothesis.

- Earth's mass has remained constant, and thus the gravitational pull at the surface has decreased over time;
- Earth's mass has grown with the volume in such a way that the surface gravity has remained constant;
- Earth's gravity at its surface has increased over time, in line with its hypothesized growing mass and volume;

Well, the moon was closer back then of course, so when it was overhead, it nullified more of Earth's own gravity. Dinosaurs probably just slept when it was on the far side of the Earth.

Duh, the atmosphere has been decreasing in overall density and viscosity for eons. Why do you think nobody throws a screwball anymore?

This is sort of true. The Earth's CO2 levels are (speaking in geologic time scales) at a low, about as low as they were during the middle of the Carboniferous period (when oxygen levels were twice what they are now, allowing animals that breathe through osmosis, like insects and amphibians, to grow to enormous sizes). CO2 is less dense than the other two major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen), and so, yes, on a geologic scale the atmosphere has gotten less dense and viscous. The CO2 levels are now much higher than they were a couple of hundred years ago, however, and the resultant increase in atmospheric viscosity will no doubt herald the return of the pterosaurs any day now.

Earth's gravity at its surface has increased over time

I like this explanation for my weight a whole lot more than "I can't lay off the Little Debbie snack cakes."

John Rocker seems to be determined to be crazier than Canseco. I won't link to WND, but they are in the story I did link to.

Maybe he doesn't believe in linear time, either.

Your midday is someone else's midnight, someone else's sundown and even someone else's sunup. Do you know that time is a simultaneous 4 corner square that rotates to a 4 day time cube within 1 - 24 hour rotation of Earth? You are educated stupid and unable to know Nature's 4-Day Time Cube Creation.

Well, the moon was closer back then of course, so when it was overhead, it nullified more of Earth's own gravity. Dinosaurs probably just slept when it was on the far side of the Earth.

According to the Welteislehre (the World Ice Theory) the Earth has had many different moons over its history, each of which slowly spiraled down in its orbit and spread its entire mass over the Earth's surface. According to some variants of the theory, the Earth's capture of our present moon is remembered as the Fall of Man in Genesis, the destruction of Atlantis, and so forth. We'll place that at about 5,000 years ago, but for geologic purposes it's at the present. I think that it's fair to place the crash of the last moon at the start of the Ice Age we're currently in, so that's about 2.6 million years ago. So it's safe to assume that moons crash into the Earth's surface roughly every 2.6 million years. This means that since the dinosaurs died out (~65 million years ago), 25 moons have crashed into the Earth's surface.

Now, the Moon has a mass that is about 1.2% that of the Earth, about 7.34767309 x 10^22 kg. We'll use that as the rough estimate for the average mass of the moons that have crashed into the Earth. So over the last 65 million years the Earth has added 25 moons worth of mass, or 1.83692 x 10^24 kg. Thus the Earth during the age of the dinosaurs had a mass of about 4.13508 x 10^24 kg, or about 69% of the current total. If we assume that the material added to the Earth was of the same density as the Earth itself, we find that the radius of the Earth 65 millions years ago was about 5629 km. This means that an 80 kg pteradon flying above the the Earth's surface 65 mya would be subject to about 697 newtons of gravitation force, compared to about 786 newtons for that same pteradon today.

Therefore we have conclusively proven that the Earth's gravity was about 88.7% as strong when the dinosaurs died out. Thus flying reptiles.

By the way, as the Earth has the mass of about 83.3 moons, we can demonstrate that the first two moons combined to form the nascent Earth (2.6 * 83) million years ago, or 215.8 million years ago. This was during the middle of the so-called Triassic period, which is obviously just another one of those lies that mainstream scientists tell us.

It is interesting that the dinosaurs died out exactly 25 moons ago. This suggests that a poisonous moon crashed into the Earth at that time.

This is sort of true. The Earth's CO2 levels are (speaking in geologic time scales) at a low, about as low as they were during the middle of the Carboniferous period (when oxygen levels were twice what they are now, allowing animals that breathe through osmosis, like insects and amphibians, to grow to enormous sizes). CO2 is less dense than the other two major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen), and so, yes, on a geologic scale the atmosphere has gotten less dense and viscous. The CO2 levels are now much higher than they were a couple of hundred years ago, however, and the resultant increase in atmospheric viscosity will no doubt herald the return of the pterosaurs any day now.

This is sort of wrong. Actually, more wrong than right.

This is sort of wrong. Actually, more wrong than right.

I assume the part I got right is that pterosaurs are coming back.

I assume the part I got right is that pterosaurs are coming back.

If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that I will have my cloned dinosaur theme park in my lifetime.

Dinosaurs became extinct after a meteor bounced off a dinosaur's head, went over the wall, and hit Earth.

Carl Everett is skeptical.

If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that I will have my cloned dinosaur theme park in my lifetime.

I would be willing to bet that at some point in my remaining lifetime, that we will have genetically engineered dinosaurs(Or animals that look like dinosaurs), even if cloning isn't a possibility.

CO2 is less dense than the other two major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen)

Um, to be pedantic, CO2 is more dense. Avogadro's principle says that any given volume of gas at the same temperature and pressure contains the same number of molecules. So density depends only on molecular weight. Oxygen has molecular weight of 32 (approximately, on average) and nitrogen has a molecular weight of 28. Argon, which is about 1% of the atmosphere, is 40. So 29 is a rough number for the average molecular weight of air. Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44. It's heavier than air. And water has a molecular weight of 18, so water vapor is lighter than air, and thus, all else being equal (which it usually isn't), humid air is lighter than dry air - as long as there are no liquid droplets.

But while atmospheric CO2 concentration in the Mesozoic was considerably higher than today, it was never more than about .2% or .3%, and that won't make much difference to the density of the air.

I would be willing to bet that at some point in my remaining lifetime, that we will have genetically engineered dinosaurs(Or animals that look like dinosaurs), even if cloning isn't a possibility.

Animals that look like dinosaurs, or animals that look like what most people expect dinosaurs to look like? In many cases, there is a difference.

Animals that look like dinosaurs, or animals that look like what most people expect dinosaurs to look like? In many cases, there is a difference.

I imagine both. I think that it's possible that genetic engineering will allow us to create creatures that resemble many of both mythological and extinct beasts(extinct will be easy of course, especially "recently" extinct)

How does the Earth keep getting new moons after the old one spreads its mass out over the surface (in #30)?

At Moons 'R Us, of course.

How does the Earth keep getting new moons after the old one spreads its mass out over the surface (in #30)?

Like this.

I would be willing to bet that at some point in my remaining lifetime, that we will have genetically engineered dinosaurs(Or animals that look like dinosaurs), even if cloning isn't a possibility.

Why not. The paper this morning was talking about using 3D "printers" and "biomaterial" to replicate organs for transplant.

JOSE CANSECO IS NOT A DINOSAUR, MR PRESIDENT

I think that it's possible that genetic engineering will allow us to create creatures that resemble many of both mythological and extinct beasts(extinct will be easy of course, especially "recently" extinct)

So why isn't anyone working on cloning (Jurassic Park style) a dodo or something? There have to be specimens around somewhere, and the DNA is going to be in much better shape than a 65-million year old dinosaur. Plus I have to imagine that a close relative could be found for a host.

So why isn't anyone working on cloning (Jurassic Park style) a dodo or something?

Because nobody cares about dodos, but everybody wants to see dinosaurs. OK, a lot of the super-giant herbivores would be boring to watch after the initial awe, but the zoo/theme park could totally finance itself by staging fights between various species of dinosaurs.

Yeah, I guess so. And after looking things up on Wikipedia I see that I have the dodo confused with the great auk. The dodo's actually been gone for 450 years, way longer than I thought. The great auk's only been gone for 150 years and there are some preserved specimens of that one.

I have seen some speculation on trying to clone woolly mammoths. After all, frozen material is available, and elephants would serve as the close relative host. And people probably would want to see them.

Then there's Neanderthals. Who couldn't be put into an exhibit because they'd be human.

Then there's Neanderthals. Who couldn't be put into an exhibit because they'd be human.

Questionably.

I'd settle for a thylacine, although I don't what you could stick it in, other than a tasmanian devil which seems unlikely to work.

On Canseco, what he's tweeting isn't really that crazy, assuming he's just spit-balling and doesn't actually believe what he's saying. He doesn't understand physics or biology, but he has a working grasp of biomechanics and is applying that to something he saw that he didn't understand. That's what you're supposed to do. That only veers into crazytown if you start to believe your wild-ass theories.