Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

You appear to have replied to Sylas but not me on this point. Why is that? In any event, I take it that your assertion concerning Bechtel/ACE is unsupported by factual evidence, and hence cannot be used as valid support for your claim. Honesty would require you to retract the claim until/unless it is supported. Another unsupported assertion. Please document where the experiment was performed, or the calculation. Your argument from personal incredulity is getting very thin, and I am unwilling to take your unsubstantiated word for anything at this point. In fact, if you look at the picture Sylas posted, you can see how it was done - four (or possibly more) lines of "pullers". It is certainly not difficult to see how that could be organized - as long as the lines were organized so that each was pulling on the same vector. What's even more revealing about that picture is the guy standing at the foot of the statue who appears to be pouring something in front of the sledge. Lubricant, maybe - just what the modern tests have shown is needed? You seem to be conflating "ancient" = "stupid". BTW - your lack of knowledge is showing in this area, as you have neglected to bring up the one argument against the theory (that human power is sufficient) that has any real validity. I leave you to figure out what that is.