Did you know about the giant Japanese Spider Crab?


  • Imagine how they would taste with butter sauce that is if they could ever fit in a damm pot!

    I wonder how those taste…

    Probably pretty awful.  Giant squid evidently tastes terrible because of the build-up of ammonia in their system from having to live in a deep sea environment.  The crab probably has that same problem as well, in addition to (I believe - please correct me if I’m wrong) living around sulfur vents.

    So… we will have to be generous with the garlic.  I’m guessing about 3,000 gallons of butter will work so that would mean at least 750 cloves of garlic.  I can get this much butter, but does anyone know where we could get this much garlic?


  • http://www.dinox.org/

    http://microlnx.com/dinosaurs/OriginOfDinosaursAndMammals.html

    http://frederic.malmartel.free.fr/Fin_des_dinosaures/eedinosaures3.htm

    Other supporting information:
    The earth is slowly getting larger and its moving very slowly farther away from the sun. The continental drift is influencing the “tug” of inertia as the globe rotates over millions of years. This also contributes to its molten core which again influences the proportional gravity. In the past millions of years the rotation of the earth around the sun has actually took longer and as short a time frame as one billion years ago, one year was composed of 496 to 536 days in 12.4 to 13.4 months, 40 days in each month.
        The research suggests that we are having longer and longer days. Statistics released by the International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR) show the earth is really moving more and more slowly and days are turning longer. There are astrologists holding that during the early days of the earth (about four to five billion years ago), it took the earth only six hours to complete one rotation, which is the length of one day.
      So the theory holds the supporting skeletons of what may live on the surface is proportional to the changes in gravity over time. after mass extinctions and these changes the selective variations arose supported increasingly smaller animal types. Under the vast oceans this effect was not as dramatic, so their are still “monsters” in the deep oceans. Enjoy your crab dinners!


  • I dont know enough about science to say who’s right or wrong, but i do know that i have never heard IL’s claim before, and it seems wrong. also, the links you supplied weren’t very widely known sources (doesnt mean they arent correct, but it does damage their credibility, because i can provide you a link to a site that will tell you the earth is flat). also, arent astrologists concerned with the Zodiac, the alignment of the planets, and the phases, and whatnot like that?


  • dude, if i saw one of those, i would fricken flip and blow the thing up, thinking it wasnt from this planet!!!


  • OMG you guys are taking a simple point about the ancient earths gravity and blowing it like the british done at Monte Cassino in 1943. IT is a fact that the earths gravitational forces were a fraction of what they are today. This is a growing body of information that supports the thesis that these changes produced and influenced the demise of large land creatures, because after all they are less equipped to limber around if the gravity was substantially increased. This is the simple reason why animals in the ocean can be generally larger as the buoyancy and other factors help support its weight. Try putting a whale on the beach as watch it helplessly strand itself, because it does not have the power to push itself back to the sea. Why do you think people with poor joints or ( broken leg) often train in a lap pool, as to not re-injure themselves. The same thing. If this giant crab ever washed up on the beach it would not be able to move or chase you at 15 MPH down the freeway. But if i saw a 15 foot crab id run anyway!


  • That article is interesting, but like Janus I’ve never heard of anything like this. I don’t buy their theory of mass extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago as a result of gravity change. Any mass-gravity change on this planet (based on my small pool of knowledge on the subject) would take tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of years. Dinosaurs experienced a very sudden extinction 65 million years ago. At the very least, this happened over a period of hundreds of years, not millions.


  • IL, there is another reason that animals in the ocean are bigger than animals on land. They have more space to grow. Try putting a gold fish in a soup bowl. I don’t care how much you feed the gold fish, it’s not going to grow bigger than your thumb. Now, put a gold fish alone in a huge fish tank, and feed it the same. Do so for a few months and you’ll have yourself a nice little dinner. It’ll grow to the size of your hand.



  • I don’t buy their theory of mass extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago as a result of gravity change. Any mass-gravity change on this planet (based on my small pool of knowledge on the subject) would take tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of years.

    Its not a general theroy to explain the major event of dinosaur extinction. It accounts for only the methods of determining why land animals havent grown to the size of T rex. The mass destructions occured under the episodes of green house effects following some object striking the earth. The gravity thing only accounts for why selective variation didnt occur as these traits for larger creatures were not supported due to their poorer ability to exist in an enviroment that had more gravity than before.

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env176.htm


  • You know, in your second link, the writer states that the gravity change theory is not very popular among current geologists.  While as someone else pointed out, this doesn’t mean that the theory is wrong, it does cast some doubt on it, especially since science is in some ways a communal effort and validation.

    In any event, interesting theory.  I would wonder however whether cold-blooded versus warm-blooded differences between animals, and the complementary consideration of resource scarcity, would create enough selective pressure to weed out the large size of dinosaurs from contemporary animals.  But, then, there were some very large land mammals too following the dinosaurs’ extinction.  But, this is a question for a paleontologist.


  • Well the largest land animal in terms of mass is clearly the Elephant, but they had land creatures that measured nearly 80 feet long and 35-40 high… now thats quite a jump. The neck weight to support the head as these creatures foraged for tasty leaves must have been immense.

    below is the more scientific explanation of what i was trying to convey:

    http://microlnx.com/dinosaurs/Locomotion.html


  • Gravity… not just a good idea, it is the LAW!  LOL


  • IL,

    So if I understand this theory, it is clear a human being at that time would be able to jump over a house. Â

    This explains how Noah was able to get the animals into his ark…he simply picked them up and put them into his boat (after all what is a couple of ton elephant today would have been only around 100 lbs then).  That is also why the dinosaurs became extinct because even with the lighter gravity, it was a bit too much for old Noah to carry   :-P

    Seriously, if gravity were that different at that time, there would not be an atmosphere because natural events would cause individual atoms to easily reach the necessary escape velocity to leave the earth…resulting in no atmosphere and a dead world just like the moon.  Therefore it is most unlikely this theory is correct.


  • again, IL, this is not a very compelling source. your evidence is shaky at best (though, again, im not saying its wrong, i dont have the knowledge or evidence to make that claim. i can only judge the persuasiveness of your evidence as support for your argument, which is not very strong). the reactions of other posters, and the fact that ive never heard any of this before leads me to suspect that you are, in fact, wrong.


  • This explains how Noah was able to get the animals into his ark…he simply picked them up and put them into his boat (after all what is a couple of ton elephant today would have been only around 100 lbs then).  That is also why the dinosaurs became extinct because even with the lighter gravity, it was a bit too much for old Noah to carry   tongue

    Seriously, if gravity were that different at that time, there would not be an atmosphere because natural events would cause individual atoms to easily reach the necessary escape velocity to leave the earth…resulting in no atmosphere and a dead world just like the moon.  Therefore it is most unlikely this theory is correct.

    1. there was no Noah
    2. there was no ark
    3. there was no flood
    4. Humans weren’t around 300 million years ago
    5. You are twisting the gravity changes. It not like the moon dammit.The moon is freeking 1/6 the earths gravity. The world 400 million years ago is basically 1/3 less than today. That is a fact and all those theory’s only say that among other things the reason why we have to huge land animals like we did 300 million years ago can be explained by this theory that says only certain sized skeletons could be supporting the weight when their was less gravity. That is not akin to the world being flat!
    6. the fact of slight difference in gravity does not mean atoms or the atmosphere will get wisked off into space by the fraction of a change of 1/3. If it was even 1/5 of what it was their would still be atmosphere. Plus you forget back them the world was more green house than today, it was like a big swamp of trapped heat due to many factors including active volcanos etc…
    7. I hope you enjoyed the giant crab story and how it turned into a discussion about earths ancient gravity. :? :-o :roll:

  • The world 400 million years ago is basically 1/3 less than today. That is a fact

    1. no one else here seems to have heard of this, including Falk, who, AFAIK, is a physicist.
    2. you havent proven this by any means
    3. your evidence is shaky at best
    4. prove it

  • @Imperious:


    The earth is slowly getting larger and its moving very slowly farther away from the sun. … In the past millions of years the rotation of the earth around the sun has actually took longer and as short a time frame as one billion years ago, one year was composed of 496 to 536 days in 12.4 to 13.4 months, 40 days in each month.
    … Statistics released by the International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR) …

    The last link you presented speaks of “jumps in the gravitational constant (all over the universe?)”, the first two of a continuous expansion of the earth. These are two totally different causes and have totally differenct effects.
    You contradict yourself: Earth is moving away from the sun … and a year becomes shorter in that process. A quick glance at the planets tells me: further away, longer year.
    The “evidence” for the expanding earth is not thought through at all. It ignores facts in the continental drift like: new earth crust is created and layers of old earth crust is submerging under a different contintental plate and then melting when (the old layers) come closer to the core. If you now take all the “ancient” crust … of course you end up with less than we have today: parts were destroyed and replaced by newer crust. This is a well known and understood part of the continetal drift. There is no expanding earth.
    There are no jumps in cosmological constants.

    The second argument is “better”: Yes, the earth’s rotation around itself is slowing down. That about 5*10^-11 %  today. That means, 5 billions years ago a day was about 0.3% shorter.
    Astrologists have nothing to do with science (that is Astronomists or Astro-physicists).
    A faster revolving earth has no influence on the gravity. It does have an influence on centrifugal forces. Calculate it yourself, and present the results if you want to convince anyone that that effect can be used to account for the growth / a compensation for half of earth’s gravity.

    @Imperious:

    IT is a fact that the earths gravitational forces were a fraction of what they are today.

    Probably like 100%. Gravity does not change. It is NOT a fact. Centrifugal forces have been larger to a negligible amount.
    I still wonder what needs to be explained about “look … in older times …we had large REPTILES that need no energy to keep their body warm -just a warm climate- … but we don’t have that large MAMMALS that need to to spend energy to keep their body warm.”

    @Imperious:

    The neck weight to support the head as these creatures foraged for tasty leaves must have been immense.

    Why should they not have lived in the water? a much safer place as the TRex couldn’t reach them there? That is the common argument defending the possibility of size (and you yourself brought up the buoyancy. Look at the Hippopotamus: has feet, lives in  the water, looks awfully clumsy, with a giant head etc. [satire] No, we can surely excluse this possibility. Instead, let’s better assume that somehow the mass of the earth doubled without any influence form the outside. f**k energy conservation, who needs that.[/satire]

    @Imperious:

    1. You are twisting the gravity changes. It not like the moon dammit.The moon is freeking 1/6 the earths gravity. The world 400 million years ago is basically 1/3 less than today. That is a fact and all those theory’s only say that among other things the reason why we have to huge land animals like we did 300 million years ago can be explained by this theory that says only certain sized skeletons could be supporting the weight when their was less gravity. That is not akin to the world being flat!
    2. the fact of slight difference in gravity does not mean atoms or the atmosphere will get wisked off into space by the fraction of a change of 1/3. If it was even 1/5 of what it was their would still be atmosphere. Plus you forget back them the world was more green house than today, it was like a big swamp of trapped heat due to many factors including active volcanos etc…

    ARGh.
    @ 5):
    The moon is actually abscising itself from earth. Gravity does not change. The moon slows down in its rotation around the earth (it is damped because it creates the tides, the counterforce is slowing it down).
    The mass of the earth HAS NOT CHANGED.
    Just give me: What was the MEACHANISM that made the earth grow?
    Where did the mass come from? Why did it stick to the earth? Is the process going on? Does that happen to every planet in the solar system?  If not, why not? Where was the earths orbit when the mass was one third? What were the temperatures? How fast was the earth revolving around the sun? How can 1/3 of mass lead to 1/2 of gravity? Is energy conserved?
    @ 6): Why would the atmosphere still be there? There is nearly no atmosphere on Mars, which seems to be the most similar planet in size and weight.
    Did gravity change universally or was it just the earth gaining mass??


  • Don’t have anything to add to the gravity debate, I’ve never pretended to know anything about physics, though this does seem rather silly to me; as Falk said, if the mass of the Earth hasn’t changed, then I’m pretty sure its gravity hasn’t either.

    1. their was no Noah
    2. their was no ark
    3. their was no flood

    You have no actual evidence for this, so try not to make a total ass of yourself. The story of the flood, etc., could be apocryphal, but you have no evidence to determine once and for all that it never happened. And by the way, the word you were looking for was “there.”


  • You have no actual evidence for this, so try not to make a total a** of yourself. The story of the flood, etc., could be apocryphal, but you have no evidence to determine once and for all that it never happened. And by the way, the word you were looking for was “there.”

    You have no evidence that I am not a space alien from Mars. I miss my home on the red planet. The dust really triggered my allergies, but I long for the food and my green-skinned family.


  • IL,

    I do not understand gravity as well as you, only knowing Newtons laws for gravity.  But there were animals from prehistoric times that have not changed.

    http://www.dinofish.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

    So how would the coelacanth have behaved differently 400 million years ago at this gravity at 1/3 of todays?

    Did it rule the earth, being massively stronger than the dinosaurs as it does fine in todays gravity?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

59

Online

17.5k

Users

40.0k

Topics

1.7m

Posts