re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:27 am

Paladin, gravity is not the main force holding stars and planets together. The electric force holds their parts together as charged double layers. This is especially obvious for the Sun. The upper photosphere is less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level. So why does the photosphere have a sharp boundary, like Earth's oceans and land masses have, instead of a gradually fading surface like Earth's atmosphere? It's because the photosphere has one dominant charge and an underlying layer of the Sun has the opposite dominant charge. So the electric force between the opposite charges holds the photosphere surface down tightly.

Electrical forces also cause the formation of stars and planets in the first place, and there's good reason to believe that planets are held together by charged double layers too. Earthquakes, vulcanism, geysers, magnetic fields etc are some of the indicators of this.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby paladin17 » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:37 am

Lloyd wrote:Paladin, gravity is not the main force holding stars and planets together. The electric force holds their parts together as charged double layers. This is especially obvious for the Sun. The upper photosphere is less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level. So why does the photosphere have a sharp boundary, like Earth's oceans and land masses have, instead of a gradually fading surface like Earth's atmosphere? It's because the photosphere has one dominant charge and an underlying layer of the Sun has the opposite dominant charge. So the electric force between the opposite charges holds the photosphere surface down tightly.

Electrical forces also cause the formation of stars and planets in the first place, and there's good reason to believe that planets are held together by charged double layers too. Earthquakes, vulcanism, geysers, magnetic fields etc are some of the indicators of this.

This is an alternative model. I was using the "mainstream".
I assume this is not the place to discuss the good and bad sides of any of them. Topic starter asked how exactly things would change - if the actual calculations were made. So if you can provide an alternative calculation, or at least describe the situation qualitatively from this perspective, you're welcome. Otherwise, I consider this being an offtopic.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby finno » Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:41 am

I dont know are dinosaur only animal, what is impossible. There been lives also many insects, what looks also impossible. Like that giant dragonfly, meganeura, like other inseccts. I don’t know how that kind animals can move, crawl or even fly. Like we know, insects do not have bones, but a shell of chitin which could not stand the size of plants without breaking. scientists usually speak only to the oxygen content of the term but rarely these insects weight classes with respect to their structure.
finno
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:18 am

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby nick c » Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:17 am

Good point finno!
The largest dragonflies today have about a 7.5 inch wingspan.
Compare this to the extinct Griffenfly (Meganisoptera) which had a wingspan of 29 inches.
woman and meganeura.jpeg
Life sized adult woman with a life sized model of a griffenfly


How about an 8 foot plus millipede!
http://cooldinofacts.wikia.com/wiki/Arthropleura
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:20 pm

I don´t think we need less gravity, only more vital energy or "life force". No matter how many tons you weight if you full of "chi" or "prana". Either way, conditions can´t be nowadays conditions.
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby whatusername » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:32 pm

MattEU, your links make sense--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swCnPOi5qOU.
Then I read the associated article for greater clarity, http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=59.
It is a beautiful explanation of changing gravity without changing mass.

The internal volume of steam would be virtually inexhaustible, stabilizing the crust like a self-inflating soccer ball.
The magma would act as a self-sealing effect.
There may even be a dampening effect on truly large impacts, because if they punch through the crust, the internal steam volume absorbs excess internal energy, while blowing external energy out into space again.
Except for the increase in gravity limiting animal size, it really makes for a very stable life-supporting Earth.
I would imagine the Earth undergoing such changes over time, rather like the flow of Niagara Falls being seasonal.
Something that massive doesn't just change like flipping a switch, but acts more like the surging of the tides, only on an even greater scale.
whatusername
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:34 pm

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:40 pm

as applied per Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, this phenomenon probably has something to do with how large animals were able to exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyAFElQZcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHN-yuRGGQM
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby MattEU » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:43 pm

whatusername wrote:MattEU, your links make sense--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swCnPOi5qOU.
Then I read the associated article for greater clarity, http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=59.
It is a beautiful explanation of changing gravity without changing mass.

The internal volume of steam would be virtually inexhaustible, stabilizing the crust like a self-inflating soccer ball.
The magma would act as a self-sealing effect.
There may even be a dampening effect on truly large impacts, because if they punch through the crust, the internal steam volume absorbs excess internal energy, while blowing external energy out into space again.
Except for the increase in gravity limiting animal size, it really makes for a very stable life-supporting Earth.
I would imagine the Earth undergoing such changes over time, rather like the flow of Niagara Falls being seasonal.
Something that massive doesn't just change like flipping a switch, but acts more like the surging of the tides, only on an even greater scale.


It is an interesting idea and at least Peter Woodhead backs up his theory with maths and theory. People may not agree with them but then who is right when it comes to this?

For those who may be interested in the growing earth theory, with a little bias to the possibility of some parts of the electric universe theory as a mechanism, I have rebooted this expanding earth theory website and blog. More articles on the expanding earth hypothesis will be added over the next few weeks and months.

There is also a long list of expanding earth theories, if anyone can suggest others, especially if they relate to the EU theory, then please let me know.

Thanks :)
What is the origin or formation of our planets amazing amount of sand? Water erosion and weathering? Extraterrestrial? EU geology? Other?

Everythings Electric? EU theory related blog
User avatar
MattEU
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby paladin17 » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:14 am

MattEU wrote:It is an interesting idea and at least Peter Woodhead backs up his theory with maths and theory. People may not agree with them but then who is right when it comes to this?

Unfortunately, his theory contradicts the Gauss's law for gravity. And also the Newton't law (which is sort of the same thing, only expressed a bit differently).
Your site is pretty nice, hope to see it expanding. :)
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby Bomb20 » Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:53 am

Unfortunately, his theory contradicts the Gauss's law for gravity. And also the Newton't law (which is sort of the same thing, only expressed a bit differently).


If the answer would be so easy then nobody would have promoted this theory after Newton or Gauß, Paladin17.
The main problem is rather an (at least until now) lacking process which can explain in a convincing manner why and how our Earth is expanding. And I am excluding irrational and non-scientific answers like "God is doing this" or "creation ex nihilo".

The current claims about subduction zones are not convincing, that keeps a door open for an "expanding Earth", even if this is not my first choice currently. And yes, I agree with Padine17, you have a niece and informative website, MattEu!
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby paladin17 » Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:08 am

Bomb20 wrote:If the answer would be so easy then nobody would have promoted this theory after Newton or Gauß, Paladin17.

Science cannot be settled in a democratic way. Unless you're considering, for example, orthodox christians or mormons being a scientific movement.
In other words, I don't care about how big is the number of people who do not recognize the basic mistakes of this theory. They just are there, whether you see them or ignore them.

It can of course turn out to be that Gauss' law is incorrect. But that's a whole other story. And that would be much harder to prove than the expansion itself. But anyway you should start here, if you are making claims about "center of gravity", like Woodhead does.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby Bomb20 » Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:43 am

Science cannot be settled in a democratic way. Unless you're considering, for example, orthodox christians or mormons being a scientific movement.
In other words, I don't care about how big is the number of people who do not recognize the basic mistakes of this theory. They just are there, whether you see them or ignore them.


With all respect, Paladin17, but I got a little feeling that you were addressing another person with your reply!?
I did neither claim that science is a "democratic" process nor did I claim or imply that orthodox christians or mormons etc. would be scientists. I think I made it pretty clear that I rule out alle non-scientific approaches or movements to scientific questions. Therefore I can not understand your last lines.

It sounds for me that you are claiming that everybody who did follow or support this theory - with its many different approaches - (in the past or today) would be a non-scientist. This is not true and you should also elaborate why Gauß would completely outrule all versions of this basic idea. However, you made a claim without supporting evidence.

I repeat that the idea of a growing Earth is not my favourite at all but the currently predominating theory is not very convincing in many parts and therefore the search for better explanations completely justified. I hope you can share at least this position.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby paladin17 » Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:51 am

Bomb20 wrote:It sounds for me that you are claiming that everybody who did follow or support this theory - with its many different approaches - (in the past or today) would be a non-scientist. This is not true and you should also elaborate why Gauß would completely outrule all versions of this basic idea. However, you made a claim without supporting evidence.

I was quoting the guy who addressed Woodhead's theory and my words about violation of Gauss's law are also about this particular theory (with its "center of gravity" idea).
Gauss's law, when applied to a gravitating sphere, states that it has the same gravitational field as a point mass located in its center. That means that when the Earth expands, the distance (that is sitting in the denominator of Newton's gravitational force expression) increases, not decreases, since the surface gets more and more removed from the center. So any expansion of a sphere (having the same mass) will only reduce its gravity, not make it bigger. So dinosaurs could not have a lesser gravity in this framework. Woodhead's "center of gravity" (which is supposedly located somewhere around the Earth's crust) is a violation of Gauss's law. The only center of gravity of a sphere is its geometrical center, and it does not depend on its size or layered density structure or anything else like that.
Bomb20 wrote:I repeat that the idea of a growing Earth is not my favourite at all but the currently predominating theory is not very convincing in many parts and therefore the search for better explanations completely justified. I hope you can share at least this position.

Yes, I agree.
I like the expanding Earth theory myself, but I must admit that it has a couple of troubles.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby Bomb20 » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:01 am

Paladin17, your criticims seem sto be justifed ceteris paribus but your argument won´t work if Earth is gaining mass by an (yet unknown) process as assumed by a number of advocats of the growing Earth! If this process is faster/bigger than the expansion of our Earth then gravitation can become bigger inspite of an expanding Earth. And also the dinosaurs could have lived on a world with lower gravitation. See, e.g. Samuel Warren Carey and others.
For interested people with some skills in German language this link provides information about one of my fellow-countrymen who is promoting the growing Earth idea in Saxony in Germany: http://ahlers-celle.de/Energie-und-Klima/erdexpansion-artikel-zu-ehren-meines-freundes-klaus-vogel-in-werdau-bei-zwickau-sachsen-44-2011
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: re: Impossible Dinosaurs

Unread postby paladin17 » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:53 am

Bomb20 wrote:Paladin17, your criticims seem sto be justifed ceteris paribus but your argument won´t work if Earth is gaining mass by an (yet unknown) process as assumed by a number of advocats of the growing Earth! If this process is faster/bigger than the expansion of our Earth then gravitation can become bigger inspite of an expanding Earth.

That is indisputable.
However, remember that the gravity of a sphere becomes weaker as an inverse square of its radius, but it increases only linearly with its mass. So if the radius gets 2 times bigger, the mass should rise 4 times just to keep the constant gravity on the surface. This isn't very good, I suppose. Such a colossal increase of mass would be pretty hard to explain, although, of course, it still is possible.
And the increase in mass makes the trouble with the length of a day even more dramatic. If we make the radius 2 times bigger and the mass 4 times bigger, the day should become 16 times longer to keep the angular momentum constant.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

PreviousNext

Return to TPODs - Thunderbolts Picture Of the Day

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest