Author Topic: The Dual Nature Of Gravity  (Read 278 times)

Paul M

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« on: October 01, 2017, 08:13:02 PM »
                       The Dual Nature Of Gravity

For some years now I have been working on the theory that gravity has a dual nature. Specifically, that the Earth has Static Gravity (SG) which is derived from mass, and also Dynamic Gravity which is derived from rotation. The Dynamic Gravitational Field (DGF)is what we know as the Earth's Magnetic Field. It may be possible that the DGF is somewhat more powerful than the SG. Our estimation of the weight of the Earth, or indeed the whole universe) may be entirely in error. The fabrication of Dark Matter may not be required to explain missing mass. The following information may lend some “weight “ to my ideas.



                      Gravity, The Dinosaurs, And Venus

It appears that there is a considerable problem regarding the size of various dinosaur remains. There are limits on the weight and height of animals in our gravitational field. Dinosaurs generally exceed these limits by a large amount, including some that are thought to be huge flying reptiles.
Possible explanations for these impossible yet obviously prolific species would include the following.

The atmosphere must have been far denser then.
They may have lived in shallow water, giving them some buoyancy.
The mass of the Earth was less, therefore less gravity.
The gravity was less for some reason.

The accepted theory of a cometary collision wiping out the dinosaurs may not be the true cause of their demise.

A very detailed look at the problem can be found at dinosaurtheory.com, Where the author comes to the conclusion that only a dense atmosphere could account for the existence of these animals. In fact he specifies 370 atmospheres would give the required atmospheric density. This may require the atmosphere to be at least 370 times as high as it is now. The author does recognise the possibility of a change in the gravitational constant, but dismisses this with a paragraph in chapter 4.


“Nevertheless the author is going to rule that the changing gravitational constant hypothesis is not a realistic explanation for how the dinosaurs grew so large. Changes in the gravitational constant G that may, or may not, be possible over vast distances of billions of light years will not work to account for the huge change in the size of terrestrial animals that occurred on the Earth a mere hundred million years ago. Occam's razor directs us to toss out the changing gravitational constant hypothesis; for if we try to use the changing gravitational constant hypothesis to account for the large size of the dinosaurs this in itself creates so many unsolvable problems that it completely muddles our understanding of the laws of reality.”


They may have lived in shallow water. This is not likely. It in no way accounts for the flying varieties.

The possibility of the Earth's mass changing is also dismissed  by the next paragraph from the  dinosaurtheory.com
study.
“The next possible variable is the total mass of the Earth. About 4.6 billion years ago, in the earliest stages of the birth of the Earth, the mass of the Earth grew rapidly as it, along with the other planets, swept up the debris of the early solar system. However relatively quickly, within a matter of the first several million years, almost every possible collision between objects that could have occurred, would and did occur. So for all practical purposes, the mass of the Earth has been constant for billions of years. The physical evidence supporting this last statement comes from the study of the craters left on the planets and moons, in particular we can learn about the Earth by studying the Moon.”

My suggestion is that both the gravity and atmospheric pressure may have gradually changed on Earth leading to the downfall of the large species.  Specifically, as a newly formed planet, the atmosphere of Earth may have been composed in a quite different manner, and have a much higher density and pressure.  Planetary rotation may also have been minimal or absent.

Venus
The atmospheric density of Venus  is 65  kg/m3. About 2/3 that of water. !
The surface pressure is 92 bars or 92 times the atmospheric pressure of the Earth.!
 The surface gravity is 8.87 m/s2. About 1/10 less than Earth's gravity. This is likely a guess based entirely on the ratio of  Venus's diameter  to Earth's diameter.
Allowing for errors, it would seem that Venus now, or some time in the future, could support a dinosaur population.
Immanuel Velikovski wrote several books with the main theme being that Venus started life only a few thousand years ago,  as a very destructive comet, before settling into its present orbit as a planet.
Note that Venus has virtually no rotation, just one retrograde rotation every year.
Venus has, in common with the Earth, a high speed upper atmosphere jet stream.
This Jet Stream may be the means by which a planet eventually starts to rotate.  At some rotational speed the magnetic field forms. This field would be a naturally occurring over-riding gravitational field.
      

      







kevin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2017, 12:23:34 PM »
Dual nature that leads to so called gravity.
Implosion.
outrush.

Two opposing spin flows.

At present 55 over 34.

It may have been 21/13.

By carefully observing nature, one can determine how this operates.

We have just passed the equinox, the trees reverse their spin zones ( softwoods) Northern hemisphere above southern hemisphere.

Kevin

Maysiranun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2018, 12:48:56 AM »
After reading this, it ends. I feel that it is a very useful content for the reader.

Gwandau

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2018, 05:24:08 PM »
Hello Paul, long time no hear.  :)

I agree with you that the gravity must have been different for these big animals to exist on Earth.

My take on it has always been that at those times the Earth spun a lot faster, thus creating the decrease in gravitational effect.

What is your response to such a suggestion?

Gwandau

kevin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2018, 05:28:59 AM »
Gwandau,

The Earth is not spinning, it is the field counter rotating.
The earth then displaces relative to the field.
The earth is a memory within that field.

Kevin

Gwandau

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Dual Nature Of Gravity
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2018, 09:42:40 AM »
Hello Kevin, thank you for your response.

I agree to you objection but I used the ordinary Newtonian viewpoint to make it easier to understand my input.

What I meant was that if the Earth´s 360 degree displacement relative to the field was shorter than 24 hours when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth it would definitely mean a lesser gravity effect on the surface of Earth.

Gwandau