A change in Gravity killed the dinosaurs!
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Natural selection would have to include gravity, and it does if you look at animals today. If you have smaller feet like a Giraffe to body size they are denser.. hooves. If you have larger feet like an elephant they are flatter, with a total combined density of hardness, and softness from the escape points of the kissing problem. All feet match all animals. The Ostrich is at a tipping point between two toes, and 3 toes, as 1 was just being releases, and the ostriches that survived best were the ones with 2 toes. So natural selection included gravity. It also includes how you are born.. egg, or live birth. Different types of pressure. And to the eggs you need to add temperature as well, because temperature changes pressure. things that come out of eggs are not really prepared for gravity so much. They are usually flatter, crawling, or flatter fish, crocodiles, snakes. All things struggling to get around. But chickens change this by sitting on the eggs, and changing the temperature, and pressure to better match an Earth Gravity. Feathers are also better in a blotting material like an egg. But Dinosaurs.. eggs, not sitting, but tall... similar to chickens, but without the extra effort. Today's standing lizards tall but light, usually crawl around anyway.
And to get to the point about what changed Gravity, my version of gravity is directed by bubbles through the Aether. If a bubble breaks, or is damaged, it changes Gravity...
And to get to the point about what changed Gravity, my version of gravity is directed by bubbles through the Aether. If a bubble breaks, or is damaged, it changes Gravity...
The kissing problem is that 12 particles can touch 1, and that is a spherical stacking problem. Particles are spherical, and growth is a pressure. weight on the feet is pressure, but also growth in the womb is a pressure. Our hands are a pressure release pushed out through the kissing problem. The kissing problem is very hexagonal on a 2D plane. You add a slight squeeze to the kissing problem, and the hexagon is our hands, and other body parts, slightly squeezed.
Feathers have to do with transferring growth through a feeding material. In other words the feathers can feed outwards through the kissing problem, creating the triple release of 3 points like a birds foot. The feathers are basically 3 toes repeated.
Seems well past time to exit this discussion, personally. Even though it is in pseudoscience!
Someone's been kissing toads.
This bit told me all I need to know about you. You're a closed minded fundamentalist who's not open to refutation in the least. While your ideas may or may not have merit(depending on how well they fit the evidence), actually discussing them with you is a pointless waste of time.
And we had the predators to go with it:
Haast's Eagle
Eyles' Harrier
I would have given body parts to see either of those.
It doesn't tell you anything. Think more logically. If I put 'Did gravity change for the dinosaurs?' that's a question. If you open with a question you have already back-footed to science. The replies are then open to scientific evidence. But being as my theory is so completely different to current science, replies based on science are not going to work. So if I put 'A Change In Gravity Killed The Dinosaurs' as a none open sentence.. science has to step up a level, and it needs to step up a level to give me the sort of replies that I need.
Photoshop elements, it's like photoshop lite. A good free photo editing software is "Gimp".
Translation :
Don't think rationally or ask about evidence. To listen to me you have you ignore evidence, reason, logic and just accept what I say.
You sound like Kirk Cameron trying to convince people his religious faith is justified. Both you and he are delusional idiots.
I'm still trying to picture the sudden change in gravity that would have killed the dinosaurs in a mass extinction.
One minute you're a T-Rex walking along, minding your own business - when "BAM" change in gravity and you're dragging your belly along the floor and scraping the skin off your penis.
What a way to go....
One minute you're a T-Rex walking along, minding your own business - when "BAM" change in gravity and you're dragging your belly along the floor and scraping the skin off your penis.
What a way to go....
And you, quite obviously, have absolutely no idea how science works. Science doesn't "step it up" to fit a new idea, new ideas are tested against current evidence and if they make a good fit they are accepted as the best approximation of the truth currently available. Such approximations aren't revised because some loony thought up some new idea, they're changed when new evidence demands that they be changed.
You see in science, every science, evidence is the final arbiter of an idea. If the idea fits the evidence then awesome, we've gotten one step closer to a better understanding of the universe. If the idea doesn't fit the evidence or, in the case of your idea, ignores huge swaths of evidence then it isn't worth the neurons that developed it.
Your hypothesis ignores virtually everything we know about physics, geology, and paleontology. That's three whole fields of science, each with sometimes literal mountains of evidence supporting them that you need to overturn. This means that you need evidence amounting to every piece of evidence weighed against you, an unlikely scenario to say the least.
Besides, this is besides the point. My criticism wasn't of your idea, though the criticism of your idea that I just typed is fairly ironclad. No, my criticism was of you. The way you act and speak is that of one who has no interest in the validity of your beliefs, which means that any discussion of them with you is nothing but a pointless waste of time. You want to have meaningful discussions about your ideas? Then you've got to do two things. One, you need to leave yourself open to disproof as an unfalsifiable idea is worthless. And two you need to be willing to learn things. As it stands you're willing to do neither and thus discussion with you is meaningless.
You probably only know a certain few pieces of my theory. It goes back to 2004, and since then science has found a lot of the things that I said would be there. This means that the dinosaur evidence is based on about 20 other pieces of evidence which I didn't go into. However there are alternatives that the dinosaur were lighter than current models predict.
You do realize that the solution is simple right? Get yourself published in the peer review journal. If your hypothesis(it's not a theory yet) is correct and you've supported your arguments with evidence then it should easily stand up to some critical inquiry and skeptical scrutiny. If it doesn't then that means that there's at least one flaw in your hypothesis and you need to either scrap it or revise it. This is the way science works, if you don't like it then don't deal with it but you can't then expect people to take you seriously.
However none of this touches on the main criticism I made of you, that you're not open to disproof or learning anything new. Beyond that you blatantly ignore three related fields of science and all of the evidence they have to support them. I'm sorry but unless your twenty pieces of evidence are extraordinarily strong, they're just not enough.
However none of this touches on the main criticism I made of you, that you're not open to disproof or learning anything new. Beyond that you blatantly ignore three related fields of science and all of the evidence they have to support them. I'm sorry but unless your twenty pieces of evidence are extraordinarily strong, they're just not enough.
No, it hasn't. And your theory of 'everything' can't actually describe anything with any accuracy. It's a theory of nothing.
So what is origin of the gravitational constant G?
What is origin of the dark energy?
What is the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and the gravitational field?
What is the internal structure of the particles carrying the gravitational energy?
What are the initial conditions in your model? Where are the differences between the GR and your model? Can we measure such effects? How? Does your model describe more than the GR and contains less the parameters?
The origin of G would be a vector force through a membrane like an atom. So an atom would be a hole, and in that hole would be a flow, and against the atom membrane would be a vector force. The flow would be the Aether, a spherical particle. Therefore G would be a constant of mass.. atoms with a vector force. The more atoms, the more G, and weight, and compaction.
Dark Energy would be the out flow of Aether. If you fill atoms with Aether where does the Aether escape? It compacts, and then folds inside out to become negative mass.. anti-matter.. and magnetism. Negative mass acts like a hole in mass, it passes through mass like Neutrinos, and like a link in a chain it creates bonding. A chain requires a hole in a necklace, and negative mass creates a hole for mass to lock into. As negative mass escapes, more mass enters, and now you have a counter weight for G. So two object on the moon fall at the same speed, they both have a counter weight which is equal to their mass... Dark matter.
Einstein speculated bending space time. This require physics that move an object through a curve in space. The imaginary image is actually the curvature of Aether into atoms in the Earth with flow, and rotation. Quite simply.. Einstein imagined a plug-hole, and said something completely different because he had gravity as a pull, and not a flow. His picture was thrown off by attraction which doesn't exist.
The particles which carry the G force are just a membrane, and a negative mass hole, but this hole is something that humans think of as empty space. A negative mass hole is not empty, it is reversed physics. Whatever matter can do, a negative mass hole can do in reverse. This particle can fold inside out so that the hole is the membrane, and the mass is a nucleus. This is a Bose Einstein condensate. With the Dark Matter on the outside the gravity is upwards, and the condensate climbs walls, pulling mass with it like a snail shell.
The initial conditions are an expanding Aether Universe, which then creates collisions between Aether particles which are tiny bumps. The tiny bumps evolve into waves. This is a complete spherical stacking system, so the waves are spherically stacked particles. This allows for the usual spherically stacked results.. the kissing problem. A central particle becomes trapped by 12 surrounding particles. A wave travels towards this centrally trapped particle in every direction, and so it folds inside out. It becomes a hole. All of the other particles start to move into this hole, and they also collapse into a larger hole.
What you have here is the beginning of a Galaxy. An infinite expansion of an Aether Universe gradually folds through a spherically stacked system into black holes, and Galaxies. With Gravity, and Dark matter as results. No big bang, no singularity. Just folding Aether.