I always wondered why dinosaurs were so big millions of years ago, and why species during the recent ice age, many of which are actually distant relatives to present day species, were also demonstrating a far larger upper limit to size than is achieved in present time. From the observation of these three time periods, it appears life is shrinking in size. But why, and how?
Ted Holden has presented a very interesting case for why its impossible for giant species from the times of dinosaurs can't exist in the present earth gravity. I'd never seen such a thorough examination into so many aspects of that case.
The 2/3'rds power rule seems a hard correlation of data to refute. And I'd never considered the challenge a brachiosaur would have pumping blood 40 ft higher than a giraffe. All very fascinating observations that to me establishes the very real challenge to so many contemporary assumptions about these fields.
So suffice to say, I'm adequately convinced there is a strong case for the idea that earths gravity has increased over the years since the nearly 100,000,000 years ago that the Argentinosaurus walked the earth as an animal that in present day gravity would weigh in as much as 100 tonnes, when the largest land animal today could possibly run upwards of 16,000 lbs, which is over 13 times lighter.
But what this really opens up to me is the ultimate fringe Alt subject of giants. With this analysis of earths gravity change, I simply can't refute the real possibility of there being varying sizes of some form of human in earths past. And from that sliding scale of size, it suggests to me that any megalithic architecture who's dating is in question, could quite possibly have been created with the huge advantage of simply much larger workers in our past.
I realize this is a big fringe flag I'm waving, but when you examine the evidence of Ted Holdens breakdown of the challenges of oversized animals in contemporary gravity, to me, it begs examination because the implications can affect so many challenging questions about our past.
Beyond those conclusions, the only other thing that seems necessary is more people at least attempting to comprehend the very challenging subject of the Electrical Universe Theory. Because it is the only subject that explores another way of understanding gravity that doesn't wind up canceling out all these theories based on the widely accepted and now challenged paradigm of cosmology as we presently understand it. There's just too much circumstantial evidence that demands a way to see the forces of the universe in a way that will explain all these things.
Many subjects brought up here. Pick your favorites to attack or agree, but I'm interested to know how any of this is easily discarded.