Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity

Ted's a Young Earth, anti-evolutionist, hyper-Velikovskian, electric-universarian (Welcome to the Electric Universe!) ... salted with his own unique style and beliefs. Possibly the archetype Usenet kook. They just don't make 'em like that any more. http://bearfabrique.org/.

If this is from relatively recent times (ie - obviously contemporaneous with human) then it should also be after the change in gravity. A chunk of rock by itself proves nothing, for it needs to be tied to a time when the gravity was different. This also means there needs to be a timeline of gravity with age. An example from a strata that is known to include the dinosaurs in question would be more appropriate.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

> ... no problem for romans...Sorry, I'd simply prefer to take the Army and Bechtel's word over yours on that one.

Hi redwolf,Welcome to EvC.Could you post your evidence that Bechtel and the Army state that they couldn't move that stone? An actual ACoE site would be nice if you have it. I have been googling and all I could find was sites claiming that the ACoE and Bechtel said this. Nothing that even stated where THEY found the information.{{Edited to add - Actually, the sites merely stated that the ACoE couldn't do it, the ACoE apparently didn't say anything.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-16-2004]

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Posts: 645

...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.

That column stone does not APPEAR to have been made by dinosaurs. That says that the gravitational attenuation which allowed the larger dinosaurs to live persisted into well within the age of man, which is one more piece of evidence involving dinosaur antiquity. That there were leftover dinosaurs well into the age of man appears certain at this point, from petroglyphs and other iconographic evidence, and the Ica stones show numerous dinosaur types so that you assume that the main age of dinosaurs could not possibly be more than a few tens of thousands of years back.That of course is fatal to the time frames required for evolution.I cannot easily picture humans living around the more dangerous kinds of dinosaurs without sophisticated weaponry, and I'd guess that most of the raptors were gone before man arrived on the planet. That's JUST a guess of course.>So, according to the Holden view of the universe:
>how old is the universe?
>how old is the earth?The universe I would assume at this point is eternal, and has no beginning or end. The big bang idea is pretty much dead.The Earth, I would guess, is somewhere between a hundred thousand and a million years old, again that is just a guess. We have one example in our system (Venus) of a planet which is ballpark for the sort of age which Bishop Usher derived from biblical chronologies and, since Mars and our Earth do not look like that or have 900 degree surface temperatures, I assume they are significantly older.You can do your own web searches for the various problems with radiometric dating schemes. I'm not really enough of an expert on that sort of topic to feel good about debating it. There are, of course, lots of problems with such schemes and they typically rest on uniformitarian assumptions.The other questions I don't have any real answers for.Another fairly new item on bearfabrique involves some of the images which have been coming back from the Spirit probes, and these are snapshots taken from the 20 - 40 mb tif images which allow panning and zooming to detail which the jpgs don't.It now seems irrefutable that Mars was inhabited prior to the great catastrophes and establishment of the present order of the system. Again this sort of thing crushes paradigms and nobody is saying much about it for that reason.

The site which had that info on it appears to have died of old age; I'll attempt to find another source for it.

I was originally asked for evidence more recent than dinosaurs of a change in gravity. The Baalbek stones are one piece of such evidence, there are others.We all know how elephants move in our present world, present gravity. They keep their legs straight underneath themselves and move in a stiff-legged walk. They cannot jump and they certainly can't gallop. Thus, we do not observe African or Asian artists picturing them stretched out in full gallop, because they've never seen that.Nonetheless, pleistocene artists used to picture mammoths stretched out in full gallop:That, of course, isn't proof positive of anything in and of itself, nonetheless it's another piece of a big picture view.

Gravity is a function of mass plus rotation...the primordeal earth developed enough mass/rotation to become a solar system body. Once the the gravitational (mass/rotation) properties stabilize to maintain solar orbit, the only effectual change to the properties can be the change in mass and/or rotation...catastrophically...I site the recent collisions of asteroids with Jupiter by example. Some of the impacts caused "earth" sized distortions to the planet as a whole, but made no difference relative to rotation and mass....so the whole thing about gravity and dinosaurs is a bunch of hooey.

That doesn't look like galloping to me. It looks like kneeling, like it's injured.

Agreed. More like wounded from the hunt...I would characterize it as a deer on the hood....a hunter bragging by mural, painting looky what I killed.

You were asked for evidence that shows it has changed.as for elephants, a quick google and
News in Science - Running elephants keep their feet on the ground - 03/04/2003 Notice the hind leg position versus your image.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The Ica Stones, however, are recent forgeries.
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer

Really? Then how do you explain the ability of modern man to move the Hatteras Lighthouse - four times the weight and with the added complication of having to be jacked up and moved while still vertical (which would have greatly increased the kg/cm^2 ground pressure among other problems) - if they were unable to move a simple stone column? Your claim - you provide a statement from Bechtel Corp OR the Army Corps of Engineers that supports your claim of impossibility.Ya know pal, it's one thing to come up with novel new ideas. It's another to invent spurious supports. I will gladly retract the fabrication claim here if you show the actual, verifiable statements of either/or Bechtel or the ACE on this issue.Now, for the third time: answer my question - in a scientific context, explain what your theory would predict we find IF THE THEORY WERE TRUE. I can't make it any simpler for you than this. If you want to play science, then you have to play by science's rules. That's all I'm asking here.

Ah, pictographs ... Left over evidence of dinosaurs maybe ... bones and fossils lying openly on the ground are found to this day.Notice how the angle of the picture of Mishipishu in your article minimizes the horns that spread like those of a bull from the head -- in fact the whole head shape is not found in any known form of stegosaur, to say nothing of the neck proportions. they are a little more visible on: Legends would explain huge beasts with embellished stories, a reconstruction from bones would make mistakes with things like the head and neck, whereas direct evidence would not allow such mistakes. It looks to me like the head and neck were made up, ergo it is actually evidence that it was not contemporaneous with man.Next up, the "brontosaurus": has also been described as a tyrannosaurus rex by creatortionistas ... who can't even agree on what is being pictured due to the detail available?Especially when there is another possibility much more likely in my opinion:
madasafish ... the giant sloth, which was around when early man first moved into North America.All the pictograph "evidence" objects are no more than playing a "best match" game without any real validity. Thanks for the good laugh on those other "matches" (talk about grasping at straws).Triceratops? Try Wooly Rhinoceros
Woolly Mammoth | Woolly Rhino | Oil Painting Josef Moravec For there to be any validity for pictographs all other possible interpretations need to be eliminated, or it is just sensationalism based on incredulity, gullibility and lack of awareness regarding alternates.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Nonsense. I am confident you have done no such thing.I am pretty certain that you are not taking the work of the Army or Bechtel at all; but are working at second hand from other sources -- almost certainly Michael Sanders -- who represents on his own behalf what HE thinks that the Army and the Bechtel Corporation might be capable of. At least Sander's own comments, although ridiculous, are not misrepresented as being based on the word of the Army or of Bechtel. The actual words in question are: You could prove me wrong by giving any reference anywhere to anyone who actually quoted the words of the Army or of Bechtel, or who identifies any official representative who made this ridiculous assertion. My head is on the chopping block for you; you may bluff or bluster, but I am sure you won't give a source or a name or a reference to substantiate the notion that you are relying on the word of the Arm or of Bechtel.Cheers -- Sylas