Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Not to derail this thread but its important to note that the common misconception of dinosaurs collapsing under their own weight is due to incorrect structural parameters being used to consider their relationship and effectiveness against gravity. The structural model used is the one commonly taught in medical texts, beams and levers and fulcrums.
Confused
Thats really sad as beams and levers and fulcrums will never work for your bicep and a 100pd dumbbell let alone a dinosaur.
Shocked
The dinosaur can stand up all by itself with no extra help from any other model then to introduce Tensegrity Engineering instead of Beams, Levers and Fulcrums. Tensegrity is the brainchild of Buckminster Fuller. It stands for Tensional Integration.
Once viewed as a Tensegrity Structure where the Fascia (connective tissue) is the Continual Tensional Component and the Bones are the Discontinuous Compression Component the model is perfect and quite effecient. Voila you have just completed your first Tensegrity class and learned the ability to make huge structures both biological and man made.
Chris Marx
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Right, which makes you wrong (there's enough discussion to in these lists to disprove the Skeptics Jurassic Park). Even the mammoth would be too heavy for existence today. & architecture until ~650 years ago shows that there was a slight increase of gravitation even at the time of the LGJ (Last Great Jolt) in the middle of the Trecento, as proved by the GCR (Gregorian Calendar Reform). The LGJ stands at the end of ST (SchizoTime), during which in the (up till now) the last series of global catastrophes (the Apocalyptic ones caused by Venus & Mercury) Antiquity was destroyed (during the following 2 to 3 centuries more than 3'500 new cities were built throughout Europe following the new climatic & gravitational conditions (since then hardly 3 dozen)).junglelord wrote:
Not to derail this thread but its important to note that the common misconception of dinosaurs collapsing under their own weight is due to incorrect structural parameters being used to consider their relationship and effectiveness against gravity. The structural model used is the one commonly taught in medical texts, beams and levers and fulcrums.
Chris Marx
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
junglelord wrote:
You ovbiously did not understand my post. Which still makes me right and therefore your wrong.
I am still working on the Spintronics level of understanding.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintro ... rd-Johnson
Maybe we could debate that?
Confused
Thanks or the links. But Tensegrity doesn't refute the observations from natural history & archeology & ICS (Informed Common Sense) & the EVU that dinos (including their big birds) lived & could only have existed under less gravitation.
There is nothing to be said against Spintronics as far as it follows natural lore (qualifying) research & is showing up engineering progress. I have only had a brief look through the book yet, but it doesn't appear to refute the simple basic explanation in Part 1 of the EVU about induction & magnetism, while illustrating excellent bipolar vortex structures, such as we can also look for in substance-relevant bipolar gravitation, transporting energy & momentum & foreseeably our future space ships, with near to "free energy" (but non-EM) implosion drives (as already known from Schauberger's attempts toward the end of WW2).