"Astoundingly huge" dinosaur skeleton unearthed

Part 2

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. [18] 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.

Antigravity?

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
The Electric Comet
The Lightning Scarred Planet Mars

For more even more information, check out Thunderbolts.info and their YouTube channel that has large collection of scientific lectures on the topic.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Bet we could tickle its tummy and take a ride on it.

Going by the photos of what it may have looked like, it looks like it could have been a playful thing.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

From the link I posted above your post:

"For example, in many dinosaurs, parts of the skeleton contained air, and we think they had an efficient bird-like lung. These features helped them to support their weight on land more easily, and made their respiration and heat exchange more effective than in mammals."

So no you cannot compare dinosaurs of the past to giraffes of today.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

From the link I posted above your post:

"For example, in many dinosaurs, parts of the skeleton contained air, and we think they had an efficient bird-like lung. These features helped them to support their weight on land more easily, and made their respiration and heat exchange more effective than in mammals."

So no you cannot compare dinosaurs of the past to giraffes of today.

No more than you could compare the extinct Megaladon to today's Great White. Imo.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

From the link I posted above your post:

"For example, in many dinosaurs, parts of the skeleton contained air, and we think they had an efficient bird-like lung. These features helped them to support their weight on land more easily, and made their respiration and heat exchange more effective than in mammals."

So no you cannot compare dinosaurs of the past to giraffes of today.

What are you talking about?

1. The fact that some dinosaurs had airy skeletons has no bearing on blood pressure and the required vein size to hold that pressure.

2. The dinosaur in question does not fall into that category.

Your argument isn't even an argument.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Dude. If you are a paleontologist regard us as students. You said, "This isn't..." and "That isn't.." but WHY? I'd like to learn this. It's new to me.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
That would be cool! Just hopefully he is a friendly plant eater. I grew up watching the Flintstones in the mid 60's reminds me of the Flintstones.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Dude. If you are a paleontologist regard us as students. You said, "This isn't..." and "That isn't.." but WHY? I'd like to learn this. It's new to me.

Read David Esker's site.

The link is in the post.

There's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much info for me to go over in a forum post.

I keep reading it Dreaded Donuts. Maybe its my recent weight gain?

a reply to: intrepid
I spoke today with a friend that is well known in his field...he works for the Peabody Museum at Yale and he said one word Awesome.

I wonder if Satan put it there to confuse us. He does that right?

I wonder if Noah rode one? He did that right?

Awesome Dinosaur! Amazing discovery. Love this stuff!

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Ha.

I remember 'The Flintstones' now that you've posted that video although I weren't thinking of the Flintstones when I commented earlier.

Would have been great and to me looks like a Herbivore for some reason.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Maybe a few of these buttes or small mountain ranges are just skeletons!

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Well at 65 tons that's a big boy for sure, you would think something that big that weighed that much would buckle under its own weight, its bones would literally not be able to take the pressure not unless it was a completely different composition then our own bones, something like from the movie Avatar were the tall blue aliens had carbon fiber type bones.

Or even if it was ergonomically build to sustain that much weight that it would not have a long lifespan or all kinds of health problems, not to mention how much it must eat, literally it must be munching on something ever other second to sustain that weight, if a few of these were around today it would strip large fields and trees bare within months. Basically what I am saying is that its likely that there was more going on back then 77 million years ago then the fact that there was a bit more oxygen in the atmosphere.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I would say that if we somehow got frozen and ended up in the future a lot that we learned as fact in our textbooks today may be revised by the time we get thawed out. The fact that we grow a bit taller if we were in space while it all seems to be just spine compression due to gravity, but image if you stayed longer. It will likely lead to a whole host of health problems, but what if a human being was born in space? Or at least in a lot less gravity then here on earth, if not completely deformed, they will probably be extremely tall and lanky creatures, not only that they would not be able to survive in earth gravity due to there body not being adapted from birth to it.

In fact its likely the way we look from head to toe is largely do in part to gravity, if you were to take two twins one raised on earth, and the other on a less gravity planet or space station they would likely turn out to be completely different in there skeletal and muscular structure so much so that they could look like different species if they stood next to each other. Most dudes who have gigantism or are extremely tall or big generally have knee or joint or all kinds of health problems latter in life, due to there size and mass so being big for a human is not exactly what its cracked up to be. And even though an animal like this new dinosaur they found is built to support its massive size, you got to wonder no just how much were not willing to admit that we may have been wrong on all along.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Was it a mammal or a reptile?
Democrat or Republican?
Christian or Atheist? lol

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
It seems every time they find a new dinosaur they just get big and bigger

Scientists have unearthed the skeleton of a previously unknown, massive dinosaur species that may be the largest land animal ever found.

The specimen named Dreadnoughtus schrani is exceptionally complete, with about 70 percent of its bones recovered. Scientists believe the creature, which lived about 77 million years ago, measured 85 feet (26 meters) long and weighed about 65 tons, heavier than a Boeing 737.

.

news.yahoo.com...

news.yahoo.com...

could it fly?

is this thing all neck and tail?

what's up with south america that has all these animals?


why there?

I wanted to post this then realised I couldn't yet so thank you for putting this up, this is an epic find, imagine one of them rolling round now Makes you wonder how many other crazy species of dinosaur that haven't been discovered must be thousands.

originally posted by: amazing
I wonder if Satan put it there to confuse us. He does that right?

I wonder if Noah rode one? He did that right?

Awesome Dinosaur! Amazing discovery. Love this stuff!

No but God did show Behemoth to Job in some way.

Job 40:15-24New International Version (NIV)


15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?