有问题的两个部分,第一个关于猜想可能有重大的改变,尤其是增加地球的“引力”,因此重力加速度g——在地质时间,第二一些猜测的含义相对急性重力变化等大规模灭绝事件,引起KPg边界(而不是排除这种急性增加地质历史上确实可能周期;在前面的实例的“大雨林崩溃”几个因素可能是涉及抵挡住巨大的植物生物的能力来维持高度下向光性的动力)。对第一部分,在回答这种增加的反应,没有证据表明存在,可能我谦卑地建议尤其是非鸟类恐龙的灭亡,巨大的地球生物在一个沼泽,事实上本身构成合理的证据,这样无论假设增加的原因;更特别是恐龙灭绝完全不能被合理认为墨西哥希克苏鲁伯撞击事件的影响,即使在与德干地盾的大气的影响。这些后者假设需要几乎可信的结论,没有一个单独饲养一对年轻恐龙数十亿现存的时间能够忍受贫困的一年或两年,依靠干草在一些舒适的山谷的地方;通过表观遗传或设法维持自己适应的气氛被火山灰。任何合理的分析,这显然灭绝的证据表明另一个因素的参与;和一些这样的重力增加,特别是如果能够证实,应该认真考虑远比从几乎歇斯底里的愤怒明显表现在这个网站。对于这样一个突然的原因或机理(周期性)增加g,这确实是一个困难的问题;但它的答案肯定不下放在猜测地球的质量的评估主要取决于假设g的重力理论视措施。重力的反对无法改变了,因为地球质量没有显著变化显然是圆形的和无效的。 One is left to imagine various scenarios in which proximity to the Sun or to bodies such as the Moon may have changed. In considering the composition of atmospheric gases as corroborative evidence for such an increase in gravity (and noting the nature of the course of such changes), the relative mass of the atmosphere as a whole is immaterial. The issue is whether an increase in g may have favoured the incorporation of heavier gases like CO2 and O2 into carboniferous biomass or mineral oxides as the function of their molecular weights, conversely allowing lighter gases and H2O to escape into the atmosphere through displacement. This is clearly a difficult and contentious point, but it warrants proper reasoned scientific consideration, rather than the puerile repudiation of the entire sense of the question by those who seem not to have understood it; and indeed to have responded rather dismally by viciously down-voting it under the cloak of privilege. Possibly I might have framed the question differently, or even asked separate questions had I not been perhaps naively encouraged by the belief that those purporting to be scientists at this site would be capable of accommodating several related lines of inquiry simultaneously, and of responding to a well-considered question asked in good faith with proper diligence.