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