Jr35rain
Adept
They could stay under 152 meters and became wider - short wide trees.
They could stay under 152 meters and became wider - short wide trees.
Mr_Darkness
Adept
Yes and browse for animals is not just trees. Sauropods would be the only thing that could reach that high and they would eat anything on the ground as well.
Gambeir
Celestial
Well the whole idea is for you to question what you believe. It isn't about proving anything. If you close off your mind to a possible then you have fixed blinders on your head just like they use on horses. If you do this you are excising information, and you should be able to hold more than one idea in your head and not become too confused, so it isn't harmful to entertain other ideas.
The Earth is supposedly 4 Billion years old: Billion years, not million years, OK?
As an example of what we supposedly know take the theory about life, about darwinian evolution, but remember it's just a theory and all theories are momentary truths subject to revision because all knowledge is fluid. A theory is an accepted scientific fact for the moment. It's not a fixed stone, it's a momentary truth, and nothing more.
On the whole the darwinian concept of evolution has another side to it that's not widely told. It's a theory which was constructed, not discovered as you've been lead to believe, but rather formatted to explain discoveries about nature in order to make those discoveries fit in to a story, and the most critical part of the story of evolution is that there is a superior species and natural right to rule. Darwinism is about a story involving divine rights more than it is about scientific discovery.
It's important to see the creation (official explanations) through the lens of history and thus how these discoveries had to be explained, yet explained so that they did not upset or overthrow the assumed right to rule in the context of the time these discoveries came about. In other words, it's not by accident that we have Charles Darwin, nor that we have other officially approved versions of reality: Just remember that.
Now there are a number of hypotheses of how planets and stars are formed, and to say that the prevailing ideas sold as knowledge along these line in academia, and as the accepted truth are both accurate and proven is an outright lie, and so I write to inform those who will seek truth for themselves; to pass along what I have received from others.
There is no doubt at all that evolutionary ideas have merit. It's an observable fact, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story, nor even an accurate story but it is the published story and therein lies a world of difference.
Plants evolve just as animals do, and gigantic trees may have existed on earth when it was 1/4 the size of it's present size, and thus earth would have had a fraction of it's present gravity. These plants, if they were plants, for they might have been significantly different, converted gases from the earth to a rich oxygenated environment. We have to have plants doing this for life on earth to develop as we know it today.
So we can only carry our assumptions about the nature of our present plant life back to a certain point. Under the ideas about planetary formation is the idea of the expanding planet model, what some like to call the Expand'0 planet model, and with this logical hypothesis there would have come about a planet which was vastly smaller than our present earth, with much less gravity which enable a rationale explanation for giant life forms. As a result, gigantic life forms are enabled by the greatly reduced gravity field and so gigantic trees might have existed using this hypothesis.
Under the planetary expansion hypotheses the earth undergoes periodic catastrophic changes induced by in intake of energies from space. It's thought this is primarily caused through the Sun's connections to earth via Brikeland Currents, but there are other energies we know almost nothing about. We do know for sure that there have been planetary wide disasters which have completely wiped the face of the earth almost clean several times. That's not really debated at all by anyone. The only debate is how it's taken place.
They tell us things for a reason, they tell us the dinosaurs were killed by a giant meteor that hit earth, but dinosaurs died out over millions of years and not overnight. For example, there's more time between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Stegosaurus than there is between you and I to a T~Rex: That's ruffly 60 million years! The Stegosaurus is actually safer time wise than we are! We are ourselves right now undergoing just such another planetary wide expansion and that's what they are trying like hell to hide, what that means is out-gasing, fluid creation, mostly water, earth quakes and volcanic erruptions, and of course ultimately increasing mass of the planet and hence gravity.
The Earth is supposedly 4 Billion years old: Billion years, not million years, OK?
As an example of what we supposedly know take the theory about life, about darwinian evolution, but remember it's just a theory and all theories are momentary truths subject to revision because all knowledge is fluid. A theory is an accepted scientific fact for the moment. It's not a fixed stone, it's a momentary truth, and nothing more.
On the whole the darwinian concept of evolution has another side to it that's not widely told. It's a theory which was constructed, not discovered as you've been lead to believe, but rather formatted to explain discoveries about nature in order to make those discoveries fit in to a story, and the most critical part of the story of evolution is that there is a superior species and natural right to rule. Darwinism is about a story involving divine rights more than it is about scientific discovery.
It's important to see the creation (official explanations) through the lens of history and thus how these discoveries had to be explained, yet explained so that they did not upset or overthrow the assumed right to rule in the context of the time these discoveries came about. In other words, it's not by accident that we have Charles Darwin, nor that we have other officially approved versions of reality: Just remember that.
Now there are a number of hypotheses of how planets and stars are formed, and to say that the prevailing ideas sold as knowledge along these line in academia, and as the accepted truth are both accurate and proven is an outright lie, and so I write to inform those who will seek truth for themselves; to pass along what I have received from others.
There is no doubt at all that evolutionary ideas have merit. It's an observable fact, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story, nor even an accurate story but it is the published story and therein lies a world of difference.
Plants evolve just as animals do, and gigantic trees may have existed on earth when it was 1/4 the size of it's present size, and thus earth would have had a fraction of it's present gravity. These plants, if they were plants, for they might have been significantly different, converted gases from the earth to a rich oxygenated environment. We have to have plants doing this for life on earth to develop as we know it today.
So we can only carry our assumptions about the nature of our present plant life back to a certain point. Under the ideas about planetary formation is the idea of the expanding planet model, what some like to call the Expand'0 planet model, and with this logical hypothesis there would have come about a planet which was vastly smaller than our present earth, with much less gravity which enable a rationale explanation for giant life forms. As a result, gigantic life forms are enabled by the greatly reduced gravity field and so gigantic trees might have existed using this hypothesis.
Under the planetary expansion hypotheses the earth undergoes periodic catastrophic changes induced by in intake of energies from space. It's thought this is primarily caused through the Sun's connections to earth via Brikeland Currents, but there are other energies we know almost nothing about. We do know for sure that there have been planetary wide disasters which have completely wiped the face of the earth almost clean several times. That's not really debated at all by anyone. The only debate is how it's taken place.
They tell us things for a reason, they tell us the dinosaurs were killed by a giant meteor that hit earth, but dinosaurs died out over millions of years and not overnight. For example, there's more time between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Stegosaurus than there is between you and I to a T~Rex: That's ruffly 60 million years! The Stegosaurus is actually safer time wise than we are! We are ourselves right now undergoing just such another planetary wide expansion and that's what they are trying like hell to hide, what that means is out-gasing, fluid creation, mostly water, earth quakes and volcanic erruptions, and of course ultimately increasing mass of the planet and hence gravity.
Last edited:
nivek
As Above So Below
The thing is these trees need to be large and tall, if a half dozen brachiosaurus' ate off a single tree its got to be large and tall to withstand that kind of assault or that tree species would die out fast...The trees must be taller than any dinosaur and large enough to handle many dinosaurs routinely eating its foliage...
...
Mr_Darkness
Adept
But none of them were miles high. 1,000 feet maybe at max.
Gambeir
Celestial
First thing is you need an Avatar.
This whole blank personality image isn't working for me.
So now this isn't to be combative. I'm asking why you think what you do, and making some suggestions based on what I would use to reason this out, which is all speculation anyways.
Why would you conclude that they couldn't be over a 1,00 feet high? See the way to defend your claim (in my opinion) would be to do the math, and since I'm doing this it's almost sure to be incorrect, but never mind that, so for example one might figure out what the gravity was at say 1/4 the mass of our present size, and this way you can take gravity which decreases by the cube to mass and apply that to locate the point where space began. At that point there would be a reasonable argument to say these trees couldn't grow any taller because they would start to become exposed to the energies from space and the cold of space.
Alternatively, a quick and dirty estimation might be to simply use one of these stat's to get a ruff idea how high space might have been. (see if I can hide this from Morrison's eyes).
Gravity falls by the cube. I'm certainly not qualified to figure this out but off hand I'd make a guess that a planet 1/4 our present size would then have a gravitational field 1/16th that of our present gravity. So 380.000 feet / 16 gives a figure of 23.750 feet. A reasonable height then might be expected to be around 18 times that of your estimate. However what the weather would be like on such a planet is unknown to me. You would expect there to be almost no wind like the moon.
I just don't see a logic to the notion that there's a limit to their size. A more logical approach than the aforementioned would use some estimates based on the integrity of the trees' biology in a gravitational field that's 1/16 that of our present field. This is going to give us a fair idea of how much weight the base of the bio matter could support.
Another angle might be to explain what prevents trees from growing taller today? Does anyone know why? Has anyone ever thought or written on this before?
General international consensus sets a similar limit for the start of space as 100km (62 miles), or 380,000 feet.
"Low Earth Orbit" (LEO), where many satellites live, goes from 160km (100 miles, 525,000 feet) to 2,000km (1,240 miles, 6.5 million feet).
Starting above the 'space' limit but a bit before LEO, the inner Van Allen Belts, which magnetically shield the Earth's surface from high energy particles, extend from 100km (62 miles, 33,000 feet) up to 10,000km (6,200 mil, 3.3 million feet).
How High Up Is Space?
Last edited:
Mr_Darkness
Adept
I could be wrong but I doubt it. Everything I'm speculating on is based on current Earth conditions with some minor adjustments. 5,280 feet is one mile and that seems very unlikely let alone 52,800 feet.
CasualBystander
Celestial
You haven't meet Mr. Darkness, that is his personality.
Mr_Darkness
Adept
lol. ok? So you stopped casually standing by for a jab?
CasualBystander
Celestial
Mr_Darkness
Adept
It's scary.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Jr35rain
Adept
A petrified forest was discovered in Texas in 1927 situated in a virtually inaccessible valley of the Big Bend with stumps of trees 100 to 150 feet high and trunks of petrified trees over 900 feet long.
CasualBystander
Celestial
You do know this is bunk don't you?
The trees were "Giant Sequoias".
Texas Tall Tale - Graham Hancock Official Website
Sequoias only grow in California. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Redwoods grow along the Northern coast), where it gets 40+ inches of rain a year.
Big Bend is on the Texas-Mexico border.
”Over 50 logs are exposed in the Paleocene Black Peaks Formation in the Tornillo Flats region of the Park, west of Texas state highway 385. More than 40 logs are over 1 m in diameter; the largest log is 2.4 m in diameter and over 10 m long...”
Much smaller than your source is claiming.
In fact the 1927 article that is the basis for the claim reads like satire.
Jr35rain
Adept
You do know this is bunk don't you?
The trees were "Giant Sequoias".
Texas Tall Tale - Graham Hancock Official Website
Sequoias only grow in California. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Redwoods grow along the Northern coast), where it gets 40+ inches of rain a year.
Big Bend is on the Texas-Mexico border.
”Over 50 logs are exposed in the Paleocene Black Peaks Formation in the Tornillo Flats region of the Park, west of Texas state highway 385. More than 40 logs are over 1 m in diameter; the largest log is 2.4 m in diameter and over 10 m long...”
Much smaller than your source is claiming.
In fact the 1927 article that is the basis for the claim reads like satire.
Sequoias only grow in California NOW, cherry pick if you will, the story has never been proven bunk. It’s funny when scientists and internet sleuths make claims that trees cannot exceed a certain height. All it takes is some variables to change, like more oxygen, co2, gravitational change, electromagnetic, fog, water etc. and trees could far surpass 425 feet.