Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 1 of 121 (100346)
04-16-2004 4:32 AM


Ted Holden is an original thinker who may be familiar to net old timers. Using various arguments, Ted has argued that the size and dimensions of dinosaurs indicate that that gravity must have been less at the time they lived. Classic aspects of this have been scaled comparisons with weight lifter Bill Kazmaier and the two thirds power law. Some of Ted's arguments are available at Megafauna and the attenuated gravity of the antique system at Ted's own bearfabrique pages.
Now, it seems, Ted has scored a major coup. A TV program in Japan has apparently reported his ideas, in some detail. Ted's web pages include a set of screen shots from this program.
Sadly, the text is nearly all in Japanese or Chinese, and there is no associated explanation given for English readers. However, the images are quite recognizable to those familiar with these notions.
Ted himself appears in the program, in page 6 of screen shots.
Bill Kazmaier is on page 9.
The two thirds power law is on page 13.
Basically, Ted argues from the size and dimensions of dinosaurs that the felt effect of gravity was very different in the past to what it is now. The screen shots don't seem to consider how this could occur.
It is important to note that Ted's arguments for a reduced felt effect of gravity do not imply any particular physical cause for the reduction. Ted's approach has been to give empirical arguments for a reduced gravity in the past, which he considers conclusive; and then to theorize on what the cause could be.
Originally he proposed that it was due to tidal forces from Saturn at a time when Earth was in close orbit around Saturn. He has since recognized that this is not physically plausible. His current proposal, presented at Neo Catastrophism Overview of Prehistory, is that gravity is an "electrostatic dipole effect" and "gravity might have been attenuated in an age of heightened electrostatic charge on the Earth's surface". These ideas are based on the work of independent researcher Ralph Sansbury.
Please note that arguments for gravity having a reduced effect in the past stand or fall on their own merits, and are not refuted simply by finding problems with this proposed theory of gravity and electromagnetism.
Ted is not a creationist, but he does think that evolution is complete nonsense; and the evolution of humanity especially so. His ideas are a startling variation on the anti-evolution views most people are familiar with. These issues have been touched upon by redwolf in another thread, and I am hoping he might come and explain the matter further in this thread.
But even if not, I am presenting this brief introduction, as fairly as I can, for others to explore and enjoy. I have not attempted to refute any of these ideas; that would be a little bit pass, and might spoil their charm. However, if anyone actually wants to debate the matter I'll be happy to give cordial engagement. redwolf, perhaps?
Cheers -- Sylas

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:10 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 114 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-18-2004 2:35 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-19-2004 9:52 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 121 (100396)
04-16-2004 1:59 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 3 of 121 (100426)
04-16-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
04-16-2004 4:32 AM


One point I'd like to make overwhelmingly clear from the outset.
When something doesn't work, I do not stick with it. When an opponent such as Wayne Throop can provide a coercive demonstration that I have been looking at something the wrong way, I look for other explanations.
The idea of a "reduced felt effect" of gravity caused by the tidal pull of an antique cosmic alignment has been jetissoned. The two remaining possibilities are basically that the mass of the Earth has increased (the expanding Earth theories I mentioned), or that gravity itself on the Earth's surface has somehow actually changed, for some other reason.
My final choice in this business is item three, i.e. that gravity itself has changed. To my knowledge, nobody has a perfect and exact reason and explanation at this point in time, but the basic parameters are known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 4:32 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 4:33 PM redwolf has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 121 (100432)
04-16-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by redwolf
04-16-2004 4:10 PM


My final choice in this business is item three, i.e. that gravity itself has changed. To my knowledge, nobody has a perfect and exact reason and explanation at this point in time, but the basic parameters are known.
Interesting. You state the "basic parameters" for a change in gravity are known. What would those parameters be? In addition, what physical evidence, either available today or with new technologies in the future, would you think such a change would leave? I mean, beyond large dinosaurs. I would imagine that there would be some kind of trace in the geologic record (for instance, less compaction of sediments or something), or some other type of physical evidence that gravity was less in the past than it is now. What would you expect to find if the theory is correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:10 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 PM Quetzal has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 5 of 121 (100435)
04-16-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
04-16-2004 4:33 PM


One thing you might expect to find would be carved stone columns too heavy to be moved by any modern, much less any ancient technology (assuming present gravity of course):
Look closely at the picture. The tiny thing on top of the column stone is a human sitting on it. This is near the temple of Jupiter in Baalbek Lebanon. Bechtel and the US Army Corps of Engineers have flatly stated that no modern technology could move that stone. In other words, you could chain everything the military has with engines, wheels, or treads to the thing and all pull at once, and it wouldn't budge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 4:33 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 4:41 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 4:46 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 8 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 5:14 PM redwolf has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 121 (100436)
04-16-2004 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by redwolf
04-16-2004 4:39 PM


Do you have a source for the statment?
and
Has it been moved from it's original quarry site?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 121 (100437)
04-16-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by redwolf
04-16-2004 4:39 PM


In other words, you could chain everything the military has with engines, wheels, or treads to the thing and all pull at once, and it wouldn't budge.
But if it weighed half as much, primitive equipment would slide it along easily? Remember, now the mass and thus inertia don't care what the force of gravity is, and the people pulling it are anchored to the ground by the lesser force of gravity, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 121 (100442)
04-16-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by redwolf
04-16-2004 4:39 PM


Hmm, bad example, I think. The "Stone of the Pregnant Woman" (Hajar al Hilba) you showed in the picture is in situ in the quarry - the base was never separated from the original matrix. IOW, it's still attached to the quarry. However, 1200 ton (estimated weight of this particular piece if it were detached) stone blocks were not beyond the technical capability of the ancients - regardless of gravity. Tests have shown (and I don't have a reference handy, but could probably dig it up if you wanted) that on a hard flat surface using lubricated rollers, one man can pull one ton. This the Hajar al Hilba would take about 1200 men - OR around 250 oxen. The feat is certainly not beyond the capability of modern technology, either - they moved the Cape Hatteras lighthouse (approx. 4380 tons) in a single piece, and upright to boot.
I don't think your photo provides the evidence for lesser gravity that you think it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 6:21 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 6:24 PM Quetzal has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 9 of 121 (100452)
04-16-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Quetzal
04-16-2004 5:14 PM


The stone is apparently ready to be snapped off at one end and used. In other words, they had the thing ready to go, and then a war or some other circumstance beyone their control changed their plans.
The only other thing which is possible to believe is that those guys did all the work necessary to prepare that stone, which is considerable, and then determined something like

"Hey, guys, you know, this fricking stone is about a hundred times heavier than we have any chance of moving. GOLLY ARE WE EVER STUPID to have done all this work for nothing!!!
Somehow or other, that simply isn't believable, at least not to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 5:14 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 7:55 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 7:59 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 121 (100453)
04-16-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Quetzal
04-16-2004 5:14 PM


Using the guy standing in front as a 2-yard yardstick, I guesstimate that column as being 15x15x75 feet or 16,875 cubic feet. With a limestone or sandstone density of 170 lb per cubic foot, that comes out about 1430 tons. What does the Shuttle launch assembly in Florida weigh again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 5:14 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2004 6:39 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 8:05 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 121 (100458)
04-16-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-16-2004 6:24 PM


Baalbek
This page has some information
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html
Apparently the stones are Roman and the relatively small distance they had to be moved is well within Roman capabilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 6:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 121 (100478)
04-16-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by redwolf
04-16-2004 6:21 PM


The stone is apparently ready to be snapped off at one end and used. In other words, they had the thing ready to go, and then a war or some other circumstance beyone their control changed their plans.
Yeah, that is the archeological "best guess". They certainly wouldn't have gone to all that work if they didn't think they could move it. However, you seem to have missed the point. The Romans were quite capable of moving it using nothing more than muscle power and lubricants - even simple water works. Especially since, as your photo shows, they didn't have to move it very far.
Back to my original point: this photo doesn't provide the evidence I asked about in my previous post. There are prosaic - and tested - explanations for how the "ancients" may have been able to move large blocks of stone weighing many hundreds of tons without multiplying assumptions. So, back to you - what evidence would be indicative of a change in gravitational constant at some point in the past on Earth? Note: I'm merely asking what the theory predicts would be found if the theory is true. I'm not attacking it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 6:21 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by redwolf, posted 04-17-2004 12:07 AM Quetzal has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 121 (100479)
04-16-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by redwolf
04-16-2004 6:21 PM


Stupid?
"Hey, guys, you know, this fricking stone is about a hundred times heavier than we have any chance of moving. GOLLY ARE WE EVER STUPID to have done all this work for nothing!!!
And in the last few centuries engineering often had to learn by having buildings fall down. They could very well have overstepped their bounds if, in fact, this is too big for them to move. Is it?
Are there any of at or near that size moved and in place? Or is it perhaps a lesson in the upper limit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 6:21 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 121 (100483)
04-16-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-16-2004 6:24 PM


Good eye, Coragyps. The stone actually measures 21.5 x 4.8 x 4.2 meters (for you metrically challenged, that's...hmmm, carry the one... about 70.5 x 15.7 x 13.8 feet). It's estimated to weigh in at about 1000 metric tons (about 1200 US tons).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 6:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 121 (100488)
04-16-2004 8:12 PM


When did it change?
Didn't I also read that the originator of this novel assertion also contends that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous? Obviously this means that it is inconsistent with the conventional geological timeframes.
So, according to the Holden view of the universe:
how old is the universe?
how old is the earth?
how often has gravity changed?
When did gravity last change to its present value?
Are such datings consistent with raiometric datings If not, what mechanism has invalidated the radiometric dating techniques?

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 04-16-2004 8:51 PM wj has not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2004 10:15 PM wj has not replied
 Message 20 by redwolf, posted 04-17-2004 12:29 AM wj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024