By impossibly huge, I mean truly impossible according to the standard model of cosmology.
The Washington Post reports:
Scientists have discovered the fossilized remains of a new long-necked, long-tailed dinosaur that has taken the crown for largest terrestrial animal with a body mass that can be accurately determined.
Measurements of bones from its hind leg and foreleg revealed that the animal was 65 tons, and still growing when it died in the Patagonian hills of Argentina about 77 million years ago.
“To put this in perspective, an African elephant is about five tons, T. rex is eight tons, Diplodocus is 18 tons, and a Boeing 737 is around 50 tons,” said study author and paleontologist Kenneth Lacovara at Drexel University. “And then you have Dreadnoughtus at 65 tons.”
Drexel University professor Ken Lacovara is quoted in the video as saying, “a dinosaur in this mass range, 65 tons, is really pushing the limit as to what is physiologically possible… ” Yeah, “pushing the limit” – as in breaking the limit.
Just looking at what we know to be true about physiology today tells us that such massive beasts could not exist in Earth’s present environment. Giraffes, which are the tallest land animal, cannot get any taller because their heart wouldn’t be able to pump their blood high enough to reach their brains. If the giraffes were any taller, their veins would burst under the immense blood pressure. Giraffes have their own built in pressure suit, like a fighter pilot’s g-suit, that compresses their lower anatomy to keep their blood from pooling in their legs.
The relatively low air pressure and relatively high gravity we experience on Earth today make super-sized land animals a physical impossibility.
Scientist David Esker has done a tremendous amount of excellent research on this topic. Esker identifies four key problems with the standard model of dinosaur evolution, which in turn implies problems for the standard model of cosmology.
There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:
- Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs
- Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs
- Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs
- Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown
While I fully concur with Esker’s list of problems, I emphatically disagree with his proposed solution to these problems. To address these problems, Esker theorizes that at one point Earth’s atmosphere must have been as dense as water. Esker goes into great detail on each of those four points. There’s plenty of published scientific literature out there that spells out these problems in great detail.
I highly recommend reading over his site to get a better understanding of why these problems cannot simply be written off as mainstream paleontologists have been doing for decades now. Esker has a MS in Physics from Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, a MS in Geophysics from Missouri University of Science and Technology – Rolla, and was a physics instructor at Southwestern Illinois College and Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs.
There are only two possible theoretical explanations for these findings:
The Earth’s atmosphere was as thick as water or the Earth’s gravity was significantly less than it is today.
Water-thick air density strikes me as more extreme than a changing gravity field, yet this is what Esker proposes because it is the only possible theory allowed for in the present standard model of cosmology. Of course, if the standard model of cosmology is wrong, then there’s no reason to assume air density is behind these ultra-large sized dinosaurs rather than a lower gravity field. The lower gravity field makes far more sense if the idea is allowed to be entertained.
It has been known for a long time that astronauts grow taller while they are in space due to the lower gravity field. The reduced pressure allows for their spines to lengthen, causing them to grow.
The water-thick air argument is a take on the “all dinosaurs must have lived in water” argument that mainstream paleontologists correctly poo-pooed when it was put forth by cellular biologist Brian J. Ford to explain these issues.
Another indicator that dense objects can have very low gravitational fields comes from observations of comet Chury. Estimates of the comet’s mass say that if you put it in water, it would float. Yet the comet appears to be solid rock.
It is important to note that physicists still have no idea what causes gravity.
In physics, General Relativity assumes gravity is a function of so-called bending spacetime. Spacetime is a purely mathematical construct, it’s not a real physical entity. In order to tie General Relativity’s mathematical description of gravity to Special Relativity, a real physical system must be described. This has never been accomplished, and never will be accomplished.
Supposedly a mysterious “massless” particle called a graviton is theorized to be the gravitational force carrier at the atomic level. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory defines the graviton as being, “entirely theoretical constructs that delicately walk the knife-edge precipice between the domains of scientific respectability and the shady world of hand waving.”
To quote wiki on the subject:
Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe the force of gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics.
The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the nongravitational forces are described within the framework of quantum mechanics, a radically different formalism for describing physical phenomena based on probability. The necessity of a quantum mechanical description of gravity follows from the fact that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.
Even if you believe the standard model cosmology is awesome and absolutely correct in every respect, I’m not sure how anyone could write off the possibility of a lower gravity field when we don’t fully understand gravity in the standard model now.
Of course, plasma cosmology offers a solution to the lower gravity field conundrum.
Physicist Wal Thornhill provides an electrical interpretation of gravity:
What is gravity?
Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.  The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field. Celestial bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch or by core expulsion from a larger body.
The 2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus within each atom (as shown). The mass of a body is an electrical variable—just like a proton in a particle accelerator. Therefore, the so-called gravitational constant—‘G’ with the peculiar dimension [L]3/[M][T]2, is a variable! That is why ‘G’ is so difficult to pin down.
Conducting metals will shield electric fields. However, the lack of movement of electrons in response to gravity explains why we cannot shield against gravity by simply standing on a metal sheet. As an electrical engineer wrote, “we [don’t] have to worry about gravity affecting the electrons inside the wire leading to our coffee pot.” If gravity is an electric dipole force between subatomic particles, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Sansbury explains:
“..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.”
This offers a clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning, superconducting disk. Electrons in a superconductor exhibit a ‘connectedness,’ which means that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the ability of the subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their gravitationally induced dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit antigravity effects.
Despite a number of experiments demonstrating antigravity effects, no one has been able to convince scientists attached to general relativity that they have been able to modify gravity. This seems to be a case of turning a blind eye to unwelcome evidence. Support for antigravity implicitly undermines Einstein’s theory.
Gravity is indeed hard to pin down. Gravitational force changes each time it is measured, it is not observed to be constant. Even when the same experiment is run using the same equipment, the gravitational pull measured will vary slightly over time. There is absolutely no experimental reason to assume gravity is a constant. Gravity is simply assumed to be a constant because that is what the standard model demands.
Plasma cosmology tells us that the Earth’s celestial electrical environment was dramatically different in the past, which coincides neatly with an explanation for a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.
The ultra-huge impossible dinosaur fossils we observe today are a nagging reminder that the standard model has long way to go when it comes to explaining Earth’s early biological development and environment.
To learn more about plasma cosmology, and why the vast majority of the criticisms you’ll find against it on the web are unfounded, check out these tutorial videos:
- Thunderbolts of The Gods
- Symbols of an Alien Sky
- The Electric Comet
- The Lightning Scarred Planet Mars