the Gravity problem with Dinosaurs

[nick c]

Having watched most Electric universe news and documentaries many times each , I began wondering if man has got dinosaurs all wrong. What are the chances that Mars was actually stripped of all its surface biology by earth (and perhaps Venus) during Saturn's (our sun at the time) passage through our current suns outer boundary? I am open minded to the "expanding Earth" theory, and gravity changing with charge, but since Dinosaurs muscle structure seems suitable for one third Earth's gravity, it seems logical to guess that Dinosaurs could have been indigenous to Mars which has precisely one third Earths gravity. The EU claim that water, ice and fire rained down upon Earth from Mars and Venus has clear implications to me. What ever was near or inside that water came with it. It would also explain all the fossilization , which is quite hard to achieve under natural circumstances. The epic of Gilgamesh and the flooding of Earth is an easy explanation of how the frozen, burned, or instantly fossilized by lightning , Dinosaurs got spread all around the planet.
Recently , Bones of Trex where discovered with in-tact soft tissue within the major leg bone that was successfully carbon dated to 40,000 years ago using carbon 14 isotope. This seems to fall along Earths timeline quite well from what I have seen. And it clearly fixes the gravity problem and 65 million year old extinction non-sense of standard Earth history today. Anyway, something to think about.

[ttsoares]

Carbon dating has many many issues. This is explained in more than one video on the EU Youtube channel.

In my perspective planets exchanging charge is fine. But exchanging mass is another topic entirely... mostly with life forms that could resist the transfer !!

[nick c]

Carbon dating has many many issues.

Yes, to the point where it is almost useless as chronological tool. For that reason I would not put any stock in the 40.000 year date for carbon dated dinosaur material. However, what does need explanation is why there is any carbon left to be dated in this material. Material that is supposedly 60+ million years old should not be able to be carbon dated at all.

[The Great Dog]

How Long Ago?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ongago.htm

How Long Ago? Part Two

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ngago2.htm

TGD

[ttsoares]

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/cosmos-in-collision-antique-solar-system-neanderthals-and-modern-man

In that Theodore A. Holden explains about the dinosaurs problem with gravity.

[DangerousDann]

How Long Ago?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ongago.htm

How Long Ago? Part Two

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ngago2.htm

TGD

yes,, mountains of mixed life forms instantly destroyed and fossilized, spanning through millions of layers of supposed accretion , that to me is evidence that not all the bones we find are from Earth. I am no longer a believer in the carbon dating methods (since studying the EU evidence) , but to have soft tissue in a T-Rex leg bone surely rules out a "millions" year old fossil. I think people need to keep their minds open to planetary exchange as a source of organic materiel. It also explains Mars's loss of miles of material in its northern hemisphere and lack of atmosphere planet wide.

[folaht]

What are the chances that Mars was actually stripped of all its surface biology by earth (and perhaps Venus) during Saturn's (our sun at the time) passage through our current suns outer boundary? I am open minded to the "expanding Earth" theory, and gravity changing with charge, but since Dinosaurs muscle structure seems suitable for one third Earth's gravity, it seems logical to guess that Dinosaurs could have been indigenous to Mars which has precisely one third Earths gravity.

So all the dinosaur fossils found on earth are really of Martian origin?

I think problem number one with that idea is that you would have to explain why such fossils are found in earth strata and not in Martian rock within earth strata.

Expanding Earth does not have this problem and on top of that it's based on the notion of why we are finding more and olders layers on the continents rather than in or near oceanic trenches.
Not to mention that with plate tectonics trenches shouldn't even exist.
Plate tectonics should have one plate sliding under the other creating a drop at a steep angle at one plate and a shallow one at the other, instead of steep drop offs on both sides.

Unless I'm wrong, I'm no expert.
This just seems like common sense to me.

[a31ford]

THROWING something in there for discussion... what if, just what if... (and this is after the formation of the moon), the Earth was more-so only the size of mars (or 1/3 of our current size)... Here's the thing, the moon went through a heavy bombardment time (I would assume we went through the same) remember though, we are a much bigger rock than the moon. So what if.. that heavy bombardment (and others) have been adding to the mass of earth, NOT as one huge planet hit, but just mass that is "EN-Mass" 100,000's of thousands of strikes that are substantial, but not "planet killers". Take the moon as an example, the number of crater impacts that we see on the moon... We would have to assume the earth receiving similar volumes (exponential to compensate for our larger size in the first place).

So, think about this... WHY are the fossils so deep ??? where has all the extra mass (overburden) come from ?? I am told that even when plants die, the mass that is now decaying into black dirt is the minerals and carbon of the plant, NO GAINED mass, only reformed....

The Younger/Dryas boundry layer... if we can extrapolate that it happened some roughly 13,000 years ago (give or take), look at the overburden ! some 2-5 feet of overburden, Given that it takes roughly 500 years to gain an inch of crustal growth, one would speculate that 36 inches roughly becomes some 18,000 years (again roughly speaking).

One VERY good link:
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2013/05 ... n-history/


IMO, the earth was much smaller when Dinosaurs where prevalent, and we (the earth) have been "Adding Mass" all along. this would also explain the newer earth at the bottom of the sea(s) floors, than at the coastal line ( https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... spreading/ ) try pressing up on the bottom of a rock... NOW press up on the bottom of a balloon filled with water (the analogy is that the water will "give way" easier than crust, hence more volcanic action, Reason ? extra mass pressing into the mantle from the plates gaining mass).

Sometimes, Just sometimes, outside the box of academia, there is nothing but the obvious.......

Greg Manning

[ja7tdo]

Earth is expanding, and the internal cavity is also expanding.
Expansion of the cavity means that the rock planet has a lifetime.
Planet collapses when the cavity expands too much.
Collapse of the cavity is expected to involve a tremendous discharge.
Inside of the cavity is filled with electrons.

In the past, the planets Feyton that were in the asteroid belt collapsed and broke apart.
The fragments of the planet were sucked into Jupiter.
Inside Jupiter, rock fragments are the materials that make up the next planet.
The creatures that lived in Feyton were sucked into Jupiter and transmuted.
Transmutation-It is fossilization.

Fossils, dinosaurs, Burgess Shale, and ammonites found from within the earth are the organisms of another planet.
Dinosaurs are aliens.

[D_Archer]

There is no gravity problem!

Hi,

In a new paper i classified all stars and planets within 20 light years based on Stellar Metamorphosiss.

The paper: Stellar Metamorphosis:
Classification of astrons within 20 light years, by Daniel Archer: http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0049v1.pdf

I made a note on Ross 128b (10,7 light years away !) as a possible Dinosaur Planet:

This astron is just larger than Earth and it is marked extra green in the classification table because it is possibly a dinosaur planet; there are other candidates but this planet is a more archetypical example where creatures like dinosaurs can thrive. This does not mean there are dinosaurs and that it looks like the picture below but at least it is possible. A dinosaur planet in stellar metamorphosis has a very thick atmosphere with a higher pressure, 3 to 5 bar, this higher pressure is what makes it possible for giant creatures like dinosaurs to exist and especially only this pressure range can accommodate the largest flying reptile quetzalcoatlus5,6. Dinosaur-like creatures have a natural place to exist only with Stellar Metamorphosis, also with stellar metamorphosis we can predict features about astrons that are not possible with any other paradigm. For Ross 128 it is now predicted we will find oxygen and methane as byproducts of biological life and possibly dinosaur-like life.


5,6, the referenced papers are>
O. Levenspiel, 2006, Atmospheric Pressure at the Time of Dinosaurs :
http://www.ingenieriaquimica.org/system/files/Chemical%20Paleo-Engineer.pdf
J. Wolynski, Dinosaurs in 3 to 5 Bar Atmospheric Pressure: http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0225v1.pdf
---

In Stellar Metamorphosis a world with Dinosaurs is a natural consequence of stellar evolution.

To note is that the atmosphere was much thicker and denser while the crust radius was smaller when the Earth came out of its ocean world type phase, the pre-Earth phase is where Dinosaurs are very possible. There is no gravity problem in this case. This idea answer every question about how/why dinosaurs existed in the first place.

Regards,
Daniel

[spark]

Earth was smaller and gravity was lower in the distant past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCMFzpMnZM

[D_Archer]

Earth was smaller and gravity was lower in the distant past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCMFzpMnZM

Only the crust was not the Earth itself. The smaller crust was covered with a lot more water and much thicker, bigger atrmosphere.

Yes, maybe the gravity was different too, could have been stronger even (possible/likely). The higher pressure explains a lot more than a lower gravity. Also lower gravity is not really likely because that would creater thinner creatures, dinosaurs are very thick.

Regards,
Daniel

[Julian Braggins]

I have read detailed accounts of divers having to spend long periods of time in diving bells at at least 3bar and bringing salvage items into the bell. At no time did they mention that it was any easier to move items out of the water in the bell than on the surface.
Lifting objects in hyperbaric chambers has not shown any noticeable ease of motion, my guess is that a medium of 50 to 100 times the density of our present atmosphere would be needed to enable the 100 plus tonne dinosaurs that have been found in Argentina to walk on land without a reduced gravity.
I would like to hear a physicists take on this, flying is one thing at a few tens of kilos max, 100 tonnes is another, just to walk.

[nick c]

I also wonder about breathing with lungs under high pressures.

Divers in chambers are breathing an unnatural mix of gases. Typically a mix of helium in place of nitrogen and usually a predetermined and appropriate percentage of oxygen.
The reason being that breathing the normal atmosphere of 79% nitrogen/21% oxygen presents several problems. That gas mix can be lethal under pressure.
Nitrogen at surface pressure is inhaled and exhaled with no effect, but as pressure increases it starts to be accepted by the body causing nitrogen narcosis. In varying degrees this can display its effects in as little as 3 bar.
The other problem is oxygen toxicity. While oxygen is a necessity, under high pressures it can be lethal.

I don't know what would be the requirements of organisms using lungs in a high pressure atmosphere. I suppose it could be argued that they would have adapted. However, atmospheric composition (as well as density) must have been very different than today. I wonder what is revealed from ancient air samples as in bubbles in amber and such?

[D_Archer]

I also wonder about breathing with lungs under high pressures.

Divers in chambers are breathing an unnatural mix of gases. Typically a mix of helium in place of nitrogen and usually a predetermined and appropriate percentage of oxygen.
The reason being that breathing the normal atmosphere of 79% nitrogen/21% oxygen presents several problems. That gas mix can be lethal under pressure.
Nitrogen at surface pressure is inhaled and exhaled with no effect, but as pressure increases it starts to be accepted by the body causing nitrogen narcosis. In varying degrees this can display its effects in as little as 3 bar.
The other problem is oxygen toxicity. While oxygen is a necessity, under high pressures it can be lethal.

I don't know what would be the requirements of organisms using lungs in a high pressure atmosphere. I suppose it could be argued that they would have adapted. However, atmospheric composition (as well as density) must have been very different than today. I wonder what is revealed from ancient air samples as in bubbles in amber and such?

Hi Nick,

I found this >Gas bubbles in fossil amber as possible indicators of the major gas composition of ancient air. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17769736

This allows calculation of original oxygen concentrations, which, on the basis of these preliminary results, appear to have changed from greater than 30 percent O(2) during one part of the Late Cretaceous (between 75 and 95 million years ago) to 21 percent during the Eocene-Oligocene and for present-day samples, with possibly lower values during the Oligocene-Early Miocene. Variable O(2) levels over time in general confirm theoretical isotope-mass balance calculations and suggest that the atmosphere has evolved over Phanerozoic time.

O2 was higher.. that should help with breathing in higher pressure....or...

Regards,
Daniel