What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
29 Comments
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+21Hold on a second... wasn't there just a Digg a few days ago stating the opposite?
- BigLou, on 05/28/2009, -0/+12No ***** they held their heads high. They were ***** dinosaurs!
- BaphClass, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1225 million years from now, the sentient, land-dwelling descendants of cuttlefish will make the same mistake with giraffe fossils.
And our fossils will be crawling on our knuckles in natural history museums, while bored cuttlefish children wonder why their parents dragged the entire brood to such a boring place. - Hraes, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6Engage speculative anthropomorphization engines!
- RcknShdw, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Yeah, there was. Someone doesn't know what the ***** they're talking about. If doesn't make sense if one species does it one way, but a very similar species does it the complete opposite.
- GMofOLC, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4Dinosaurs are the *****.
fixed - digitalArtform, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3No, their necks were horizontal. When they say they held their heads high they mean the early dinosaurs were totally full of themselves.
- BaphClass, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Now why the hell did I read that in Jean-Luc Picard's voice?
- ItsTwentyBelow, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3I'm skeptical of the research behind this article. They don't do a whole lot to back up their claims. The overwhelming majority of paleontologists agree that the structure of the cervical vertebrae in Diplodocus would not have allowed it to raise its head a whole lot higher than horizontal, regardless of how much muscle and connective tissue supported the neck. Holding the neck horizontally also provided a counterbalance for the animal's incredibly long tail, which does make a lot of physical sense. The researchers here are comparing its anatomy to modern animals like mammals as well, but they don't seem to realize that sauropod dinosaurs were like nothing alive today and certainly were not closely related to mammals, so whatever parallels they're drawing here are pretty dubious in my opinion. Other sauropods like Brachiosaurus probably held their necks much higher, and it's clear to see from their anatomy that this is easily plausible, but not Diplodocus. But hey, I could potentially be wrong. I have to admit, I've never seen a live Diplodocus. Paleontology articles always get a digg from me!
- nitsuj, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2Ted Holden appears to believe in the global flood, I'm assuming it's the biblical flood:
"Something was vastly different in the pre-flood world."
"Ovid notes (Metamorphoses) that men and animals hid on mountain tops during the deluge, but that most died from lack of food during the hard year following."
"The pteranodon's way of life should have been impervious to all mishap; the notion that pteranodon died out when the felt effect of gravity on earth changed after the flood is the only good explanation."
So, despite his borderline curious reasoning about weight and structure, he believes in an event for which there is no evidence and that this event somehow changed the gravity of the Earth.
I don't have a problem with considering that gravity perhaps changed throughout the planets history in the same way that we know the atmosphere and oxygen levels did. But this is a case where insistent belief on non-evidenced biblical events soils the hypothesis.
A quick google for Ted Holden brings this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/holden.html - immatellyouwhat, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2If both are true then they were definitely rockin out to something.
- pln2bz, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1Re: "Links if you please. I've looked long and hard for evidence of a global flood and so far haven't found any. Local cataclysmic flood? Of course. Floods pertaining to thawing ice age (25k ya)? Yup. Global deluge? Nothing."
The flood is merely one aspect of a sequence of events that's described by numerous cultures. What you need to be paying attention to are the similarities between the various "creation myths". I'm not sure that the information you're looking for is actually available for free online. That's probably the problem you're running into. Dwardu Cardona is really, by far, the best source for information on the similarities between creation myths. His "God Star" book has 2,000 references, and Dwardu is exceptional at spotting mistranslations within prior comparative mythological works. You might also consider reading a book named "Hamlet's Mill". I've not read Hamlet's Mill yet, but I've witnessed discussion of it (my focus is more on the plasma than the mythology side of the Electric Universe). Either way you cut it, you will have to dig into materials that are typically considered to be against-the-mainstream when it comes to evidence for a global flood.
Re: "I've read Joseph Campbell and I'd be inclined to agree with him. We are genetically predisposed and we do have similar psyches so that hypothesis holds water. Immanuel Velikovsky's is just suggesting that certain events happened. There's no way to actually test that."
I have to give you credit for both being open-minded and even realistic. You're right: We cannot prove anything of a historical nature. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still perform an investigation and even attempt proofs for these sorts of things.
I think that the more you learn about comparative mythology, the more you will come to realize that Campbell's work is actually speculative by contrast. There is far more supporting evidence for an ancient catastrophe than for Campbell's arguments. Much of this evidence has only recently become apparent, or is still in the process of being revealed. The synthesis of mythology and plasma physics ("plasma mythology") is a very new concept, but it has also turned out to be exceptionally fruitful. I am not exaggerating when I say that ALL of the oldest mythological stories can now be explained with laboratory plasma physics. Dwardu Cardona proves this quite eloquently. It is not speculative.
Re: "Plasma physics sounds interesting to me but it's exactly this kind of connection that's holding it back, if it has any merit. Mythology is mythology. Sure, some of it is seeded from events and truth but it's so hopelessly open to interpretation. Mix science and mythology and soon you descend into pseudo-science quackery and there are many, many examples of this in existence today."
You never fully mix the two. What you do, instead, is you maintain two separate investigative tracks. The research into plasma physics is completely separate from the research into mythology. But, the real benefit comes when you have people like Rens van der Sluijs -- a very talented comparative mythologist -- comparing notes and holding conferences with Wallace Thornhill, a plasma physicist. Rens can understand almost ten ancient languages. Both Rens and Dwardu are able to read the actual source texts, so they are less prone to mistranslations.
There is a great example that pertains to the Squatter Man rock art drawings. Check this out ...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0707 ...
We would be fools not to follow up on a lead like this. In fact, that's precisely what Anthony Peratt is doing. Peratt is a former advisor to the Department of Energy, a researcher who works on the z-machine and an IEEE peer-reviewer. He's performing his own independent investigation of these stick man drawings, which he's published papers on. It turns out that the drawings represent different stages of high discharge plasma formations. You can feed these drawings into a computer and have the computer sort out where the manifestation occurred on Earth based upon the locations of each of the drawings. The computer can also reproduce the 3-dimensional shape based upon all of the various viewpoints. It is exciting research.
Keep in mind that all we're talking about here is aurora-like activity. The ionosphere and magnetosphere that surround our planet are diffuse plasmas in the "dark mode". Given sufficient current density, however, and those plasmas will light up like a neon light. This is what the aurora is. THEMIS has confirmed that "magnetic ropes" as wide as the Earth itself regularly connect the Sun with the Earth. Magnetic ropes in the laboratory are electrical transmission lines. They are electrical currents. There's no reason whatsoever why the aurora must only occur at the poles. These stick man drawings are precisely what one would expect to see under a more electrically active scenario. The ionosphere and magnetosphere can light up like a neon light, given sufficient current density. This is real straightforward, even uncontroversial, plasma physics. It's the second mode of plasma -- the glow mode. The stick man drawings are nothing more than magnetic ropes seen edge-wise. We see these magnetic ropes (called Birkeland Currents) all over the place in space, and on all scales of the universe. They extend the electric force to limitless distances. They are the very reason why the electric force is in fact the universe's dominant force. Astrophysicists are not trained to know what Birkeland Currents are. It's not an important part of their curriculum, and yet, Birkeland Currents naturally emit microwaves. The cosmic microwave background is likely nothing more than a local electromagnetic fog -- the crackle of the transmission lines. Much evidence supports this view, contrary to what you'd hear from astrophysicists.
[begin quote]
"The most benign situation for life in an Electric Universe is inside the electrical cocoon of a brown dwarf star. ..... The exceedingly thin atmosphere of such stars has the essential water and carbon compounds to mist down onto planetary surfaces. The reddish light is ideal for photosynthesis. Such a model provides one reason why the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project is unlikely to succeed. Any advanced civilization on such a planet will be unaware that the universe exists outside its own stellar environment, and radio communication through the glow discharge of the star is impossible!"
Complete and utter speculation, like much of this book it seems, stated as fact.
[end quote]
Not so fast there. You're really getting ahead of yourself. First, Wal Thornhill's book is incredibly scientific. He applies textbook plasma physics to the interpretation of astrophysical imagery and data. Wal is normally completely allergic to speculation. Everything he says here about brown dwarfs is based upon a plasma physics interpretation. Once you understand plasma physics, the statement completely loses its speculative nature. The real problem is that people don't understand what plasmas are. They don't understand what plasmas do. And they don't even realize that the visible universe IS 99.999% matter in the plasma state (an undisputed fact). Even astrophysicists still talk in terms of gases. We're talking about the universe's fundamental state of matter here. And people have no clue about any of it!
What you have to realize is that most of our theories for the universe were established prior to the 1950's when we sent probes into space. Gamow created the Big Bang Theory, for instnace, in 1948. Einstein established Relativity in the 20's. When we sent probes up, we discovered that we had the wrong state of matter for the universe. So, when it was discovered that space was filled with matter in the plasma state, this led to a major problem for astrophysicists. How would they retain their models? Well, they had a trick up their sleeve that escaped notice by the public. They would adopt Hannes Alfven's earliest magnetohydrodynamics models, which modeled plasmas as gases. They would model the plasmas as instantaneously charge-neutralizing, as superconductors with no electrical resistance, and as having frozen-in-place magnetic fields. The truth is that none of these things are true. Plasma's voltage-current curve NEVER touches the V-axis, which means that voltage/current = resistance = non-zero. That, in turn, means that there exists an electric field at all points of the plasma, which means that charge accumulation can indeed occur and that electric currents can indeed flow throughout cosmic plasmas. This used to be accepted as truth until Gamow managed to convince the Bell Labs engineers that they had discovered evidence for the Big Bang. Since that time, funding structures have solidified and alternative explanations for the CMB have not been acknowledged. You will still hear claims, in fact, that relic radiation from the Big Bang is the ONLY way to generate omni-directional microwaves. Well, there's a saying in the plasma lab that electron beams (which are really just Birkeland Currents) always generate microwaves. And this emission would definitely be omni-directional. Many attempts to prove that the CMB is a relic radiation have failed. The only reason that astrophysicists continue to believe in the CMB is because universities continue to teach it. The evidence is just not there. There are no galactic shadows and no gravitational lensing that we would expect from the CMB if it was located at the farthest reaches of the universe. Meanwhile, Gerrit Verschuur has identified 200 correlations between WMAP hotspots (the CMB) and interstellar neutral hydrogen filaments. Neutral hydrogen filaments are what theory predicts would occur at the centers of cosmic Birkeland Currents. The CMB -- the most widely heralded evidence for the Big Bang -- is actually slowly, but surely, turning into proof for electrical transmission lines crisscrossing space. You wouldn't know it by reading the papers though. Astrophysicists have allowed themselves to fall under the spell of confirmatory bias. They all want the Nobel prize now, which they know they will only get if they confirm pre-existing theory. People who advocate against-the-mainstream theories lose their funding. That's just how the world works today. - Tyler324, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1This seems kind of obvious. If they held their head high its center of gravity would be more centrally located over their body making it much easier to hold. If you don't understand, try bending at the waist and notice how much harder it is to perform otherwise simple tasks such as walking around.
- DrSnugglebunny, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1From the trio of researchers themselves:
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/sauropods-he ...
and
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/05/sa ... - Neworab, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1We were all wrong, and now we will pay the price. god help us all.
- nitsuj, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1"No, there is actually an enormous amount of quite specific evidence for an event around 5,000 years ago."
Links if you please. I've looked long and hard for evidence of a global flood and so far haven't found any. Local cataclysmic flood? Of course. Floods pertaining to thawing ice age (25k ya)? Yup. Global deluge? Nothing.
"Joseph Campbell proposed that the reason for this was that we are genetically predisposed, and that the similarities were the result of our own similar psyches."
I've read Joseph Campbell and I'd be inclined to agree with him. We are genetically predisposed and we do have similar psyches so that hypothesis holds water. Immanuel Velikovsky's is just suggesting that certain events happened. There's no way to actually test that.
"So, given that they ignore all of these findings, should it surprise us one bit that astrophysicists also ignore the entire discipline of comparative mythology? Zeus holds within his hand all of the fundamental shapes of the z-pinch, which is what happens when a Birkeland Current conducts sufficient energy to cause the twisted filaments to pinch together."
Plasma physics sounds interesting to me but it's exactly this kind of connection that's holding it back, if it has any merit. Mythology is mythology. Sure, some of it is seeded from events and truth but it's so hopelessly open to interpretation. Mix science and mythology and soon you descend into pseudo-science quackery and there are many, many examples of this in existence today.
"These people are intent on dismissals."
They're intent on dismissing pseudo-science quackery.
"I don't advise focusing so much on Ted Holden. He's just a regular guy who read a lot, and who wanted to tell people about what he read."
You're being way, way too kind. After posting above I did some more digging and research on the guys website and his debates with others. His view on evolution and anthropology are hideously broken - it's embarrassing. He literally ignores every attempt others make to correct his points. After reviewing his texts I can safely say that I'm happy to dismiss this guy. He's not a credible source of anything.
As for "Wal Thornhill". To be honest, the synopsis section for that book reads like Erich Von Daniken with a sci-fi twang. For example this section:
"The most benign situation for life in an Electric Universe is inside the electrical cocoon of a brown dwarf star. ..... The exceedingly thin atmosphere of such stars has the essential water and carbon compounds to mist down onto planetary surfaces. The reddish light is ideal for photosynthesis. Such a model provides one reason why the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project is unlikely to succeed. Any advanced civilization on such a planet will be unaware that the universe exists outside its own stellar environment, and radio communication through the glow discharge of the star is impossible!"
Complete and utter speculation, like much of this book it seems, stated as fact.
"Plasma physics is in fact the future of astrophysics. It's just taking people a long time to realize it."
I'll hang around and keep an open mind until it gets more rigorous treatment. - mattofasia, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2Of course they held their heads high. What else could Jesus have held onto while riding them?
(/s) - pln2bz, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1Correction: it was Dickie that convinced the Bell Labs engineers -- not Gamow.
- Hraes, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1Because you're awesome.
- pln2bz, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Although I'm actually a fan of hearing out both sides of an argument, this is the Ted Holden link that's of interest ...
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropod ... - imkidred, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Duh, they were just big birds. I don't see many ostriches walking around scraping their beaks on the ground. Their heads are in line with their center of gravity.
- pln2bz, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1Re: "So, despite his borderline curious reasoning about weight and structure, he believes in an event for which there is no evidence and that this event somehow changed the gravity of the Earth."
No, there is actually an enormous amount of quite specific evidence for an event around 5,000 years ago. You'd have to learn a bit of comparative mythology in order to understand it though. I recommend Dwardu Cardona's "God Star" (it is not a religious text, btw). What you have to realize is that scientists like to imagine that "myth" by default equates to "untrue". The truth is that human mythology is incredibly strange and even enigmatically similar across numerous cultures. Joseph Campbell proposed that the reason for this was that we are genetically predisposed, and that the similarities were the result of our own similar psyches. However, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the reason for the similarities were because people witnessed catastrophic global events in the sky, and that these events inspired the story-telling that laid down the earliest frameworks for mythology.
Velikovsky's book, "Worlds in Collision", would become a national bestseller published by a major textbook publisher. But, people like yourself who knew nothing about the strangeness of mythological stories and their unexplained similarities, pressured his publisher to yank the book while it was the bestseller. The book would be found on Albert Einstein's desk when Einstein died. Unlike his followers, Einstein had an open mind and plenty of humility.
Now, all of that occurred back in the 70's. Carl Sagan won that battle in the beginning. But, since then, many many discoveries have been made which actually confirm Velikovsky's catastrophist theory. We've learned a lot about plasma physics. And it has actually become more accepted now for scientists to discuss catastrophe. The uniformitarian philosophy that Carl Sagan and others backed in the 70's has slowly faded in favor of a more realistic view that catastrophes can and do occur. But, astrophysicists continue to cling to simplistic collisional models for what happens when two large bodies in space encounter one another. They ignore the fact that we're talking about electrodynamics and plasma physics here. They ignore the fact that most of the enigmatic features we observe on planets in our solar system can be easily explained with electromagnetism. They ignore the fact that the Deep Impact mission revealed that comets possess a plasma sheath of their own, and that the first of the two flashes in that experiment indicated a charge neutralization, in accordance with Velikovsky's writings. They ignore rilles that defy gravity by moving both down and UP over features. They ignore the fact that the Grand Canyon's Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp (rivers don't go through plateaus; they go around them). They even ignore observations of the (moving) "geysers" of Enceladus, which indicate quite strongly that we are seeing electrical machining of its surface. They wonder at the similarities between Enceladus and Comets, not realizing that a plasma physics explanation resolves all of their questions. They ignore all of the evidence for charge separation in space, as well as Hannes Alfven's critical ionization velocity -- which we know from numerous experiments over the past 30 decades does indeed create charge separation in space. They continue to teach astrophysics students that charge separation can't exist in space, apparently unaware of the CIV. They ignore the fact that Gerrit Verschuur has already identified 200 neutral interstellar hydrogen filaments that correspond with WMAP hotspots, suggesting that the CMB is in fact a local electromagnetic fog resulting from Birkeland Currents. These neutral filaments are precisely what we would expect from the process of Marklund Convection, which we know occurs when plasmas conduct electrical current. In fact, they ignore the fact that THEMIS has already observed Birkeland Currents as wide as the Earth regularly connecting the Sun with the Earth. They ignore the fact that the double helix nebula coming from our galaxy's core is exactly the same shape -- a magnetic rope structure. Magnetic rope structures cannot be generated by winds, fluids or gases. They are ONLY the result of electromagnetism. Astrophysicists ignore that the dominant state of matter actually is plasma (99% of what we see), and that plasmas in the laboratory ignore gravity with less than 1% ionization. And rather than accept that the magnetic fields we observe pervading virtually all scales of space are the result of electric currents, they would instead pretend that they can infer their own causes for those magnetic fields because their galactic models never actually predicted that the magnetic fields should be there in the first place.
So, given that they ignore all of these findings, should it surprise us one bit that astrophysicists also ignore the entire discipline of comparative mythology? Zeus holds within his hand all of the fundamental shapes of the z-pinch, which is what happens when a Birkeland Current conducts sufficient energy to cause the twisted filaments to pinch together. We had to build billion-dollar high-discharge plasma experiments in order to understand those morphologies, and Zeus is sitting there -- almost taunting us -- with those shapes in his hand. They definitely saw SOMETHING. The question is: WHAT?! To understand the answer, we'll have to actually investigate what they said. And we'll have to maintain an open mind. Pseudo-skepticism will get us nowhere other than where we currently are -- with models that paleontologists can't get to work. When your models don't work, you have to look on for explanations that you wouldn't have previously considered. It's a clue that you're making a mistake somewhere. You won't find the mistake by shutting doors to investigation.
Re: "I don't have a problem with considering that gravity perhaps changed throughout the planets history in the same way that we know the atmosphere and oxygen levels did. But this is a case where insistent belief on non-evidenced biblical events soils the hypothesis."
Well, you have to be much more careful with an examination of mythology than that. Many of the stories of the Bible are in fact cultural stories that originated long before the Bible, which the Bible's authors just picked up. The flood is one such story. Just because it's picked up by the Bible does not mean we should ignore it. We have to be more rigorous than that.
Re: "A quick google for Ted Holden brings this up: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/holden.html&q ...
These people are intent on dismissals. Keep in mind that the uniformitarians that used to dominate talk.origins have essentially lost their debate over time. It is now accepted that catastrophe CAN and DOES occur. We should not presume to understand all of the consequences for those catastrophes before we even investigate it, or we will most certainly fool ourselves.
I don't advise focusing so much on Ted Holden. He's just a regular guy who read a lot, and who wanted to tell people about what he read. You really need to be reading Wal Thornhill's writings. He has some very important things to say which people are ignoring. It does appear that he's figured out gravity, as well as huge chunks of cosmology and astrophysics. Also keep in mind that many of the people who established plasma cosmology -- like Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland -- have been highly successful at making astrophysical predictions. Wal Thornhill is no different ...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm
It's not that Wal is "lucky". It's that he understands plasma physics, and that our observations of space can be understood and predicted with plasma physics. Plasma physics is in fact the future of astrophysics. It's just taking people a long time to realize it. - pln2bz, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1I should also add to this that the man who invented the very mathematical models for plasmas that astrophysicists continue to use to this day -- Hannes Alfven -- would eventually distance himself from his earliest magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) models. He would argue that the frozen-in magnetic field concept was in fact "pseudo-pedagogical" -- a concept which appeared to help, but in fact dangerously misled. Hannes Alfven was incredibly accurate at making astrophysical predictions. His book "Cosmic Plasma" explained virtually all of astrophysics with electrodynamics. When he was alive, he was a scientific heretic because he refused to jump on board the Big Bang bandwagon. But a very well respected heretic, nonetheless. Word is that you could hear a pin drop in his lecture hall. He predicted the critical ionization velocity in 1942, and it wouldn't even be experimentally verified until 1961! Critical ionization velocity (CIV) explains how charge separation occurs in space. To this day, astrophysicists are taught that charge separation cannot occur in space, and yet every radio telescope on this planet has already observed CIV occurring. The CIV is the relative velocity between a plasma and neutral matter at which the neutral matter starts to become ionized. The value of the CIV completely depends upon traits associated with the neutral matter. CIV's show up for all of the universe's most common elements. Radio astronomers follow neutral hydrogen just because it's easy to see with radio telescopes and because it's extremely plentiful. When you see CIV in space, that means that charge separation is occurring. But it also strongly suggests that you are looking at an electrical transmission line in space.
There is very exciting research going on with respect to Verschuur's work that nobody is paying attention to. Verschuur and others are in fact mapping out an electrical grid that appears to span the entire galaxy. Not even radio astronomers fully understand the implications of what's going on. They still believe all of the gravity-based theories. When the radio astronomers finally wake up -- which will eventually happen -- we will see some intense clashes with respect to radio telescope time. We live in interesting times. But you wouldn't know it by reading the papers. - blastcube, on 05/28/2009, -2/+2Couldn't find the Digg link, but i think this was the article from a few weeks ago: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/01/long-neck ...
I think it's obvious the heads were held high. It doesn't make physical sense to say otherwise. - PaleoKing, on 06/02/2009, -0/+0Vertical necks are simply EASIER to hold up! No straining to keep the damn thing level, cuz GRAVITY does all the work. Living birds and mammals have vertical necks too, they're just hidden under piles of fur and feathers. They're not sticking out in front like some kind of prehistoric pole-vaulter!
- cptcliche, on 05/28/2009, -1/+1Exactly. Its not energy efficient for them to hold their necks out. The heart would have to work much harder in order to provide the brain with blood.
And, by the way, your link doesn't work. Maybe its just right now but I tried it and nothing. - viajeacanada, on 05/28/2009, -0/+0más informacion sobre dinosaurios en este video: Dinosaurios en Drumheller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez7LAkFW7f4
- pln2bz, on 05/28/2009, -2/+1The problem with modeling ancient dinosaurs is that the answer can very easily span multiple complex scientific disciplines, including even electrodynamics, plasma physics, astrophysics and cosmology. I know that sounds strange, but let me explain ...
In every analysis that's ever done with sauropods, paleontologists *assume* the conventional astrophysical theories, which accept a constancy for the gravitational constant G. What paleontologists might not realize is that there are such problems with G's constancy to this day that we still don't even know G's exact value. The astronomical unit (AU) changes over time. And the value of G used to model the Sun is in fact lower than the more conventional range of values. One would not be guessing if they suggested that perhaps Einstein was right early on in his career when he suggested that there exists a unified field theory that relates G to electromagnetism.
Wal Thornhill, a plasma physicist who has published in IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences, has written extensively on this subject on his holoscience site:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcm ...
"Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe", for instance
It seems that a big part of the confusion boils down to our ideas about the electron's structure. Ralph Sansbury has performed a very important and extremely simple experiment that strongly suggests that the electron has subparticles. He calls them subtrons. Search on "Ralph Sansbury Subtron" for more information. Wal uses Sansbury's results to demonstrate that gravity can change as a function of charge accumulation. Astrophysicists like to imagine that bodies in space cannot acquire or trade electrical charge, but we see an electric field surrounding the Earth (electric fields result form charge accumulation). We also see that the Sun's solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as those charged particles pass Earth's orbit (implying, once again, an electric field as the cause). The notion that bodies in space cannot acquire or trade electrical charge is necessary in order to maintain that the universe is gravity-dominated -- an idea which is now deeply entrenched within the astrophysical discipline. An admission that theorists have been wrong on this point would constitute an admission of 100 years of mistakes, starting with Einstein, and throw astrophysical funding structures into total chaos.
All of the evidence you need to understand how gravity can change is right there. Most of these Electric Universe arguments derive directly from laboratory plasma physics. The reason why this is done is because the visible matter in space is 99% matter in the plasma state.
Ted Holden has written specifically on the fact that sauropod's necks actually support the contention that gravity has changed here on Earth ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods/sauropod ...
Astrophysicists are trained to believe that electricity doesn't do things of importance in space. And yet, this is an ideology that is defied by numerous observations. The fact is that space is filled with magnetic fields, and in every OTHER discipline of science, electric currents are accepted as the only possible cause for sustaining those magnetic fields.
Paleontologists aren't trained in electrodynamics sufficient to be able to understand that G is the least constant of all of the constants, and that they should be thinking about gravity as a side effect of electromagnetism.
We need to be encouraging our scientists to become as multi-disciplinary as possible. We've paid a very heavy price for our over-specialization. Many of the greatest minds of the 20th and 19th centuries were "natural scientists" -- people who used the scientific method to very generally study nature. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -10/+1Dinosaurs are *****. Learn to know things, losers.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is