Dinosaurs' gravity   .Expanding Earth.Latest News.Publications.
 www.dinox.org
Search the Site
Home
My book details....
The third edition of my book is widely available
An explanation for the gigantic scale of prehistoric life
Book reviews....
Here are a list of the some common questions asked in various comments about my book. If you have any questions that aren’t covered here, or any follow up questions, please feel free to use the Dinosaurs and Expanding Earth Facebook page to ask them.

••••••oOo••••••

Q. Reduced gravity seems opposite [to] what the evidence suggests... If we put a man in space (ie reduced gravity), physiologically he starts to reduce his body mass. Calcium is not used to produce bone. Cardiovascular functions are reduced and muscle starts to atrophy. Isn’t your thesis backwards? Answer

Q. Aren't both weight and strength governed by the cube function, not one cube and the other square as you state in your book? Weight is proportional to volume. Muscle mass is proportional to volume. Isn't muscle strength proportional to muscle mass?  Answer

Q. Does Economos’ 1981 paper, The Largest Land Mammal, prove that gravity was the same 23 to 34 million years ago? Answer

Q. Does Hokkanen’s paper, The Size of the Largest Land Animal, prove that dinosaurs could grow to their gigantic size in our present gravity?  Answer

Q. Has anyone determined the weight of a creature by the depth of its footprint in a known material?  Answer

Q. Isn’t the suggestion of an ancient Earth spinning more rapidly a more plausible explanation for a reduction in gravity? Answer

Q. Have any calculations been done on on the possible atmospheric make-up of Earth with 1/3 its current gravity? Answer

Q. If the Earth truly did expand, wouldn't gravity have decreased, not increased as you suggest? Answer

Q. You stated in your book that the mass increase of the Expanding Earth was due to cosmic material hitting the Earth. The most common estimate I have found is 30,000 tonnes of cosmic dust per year. Are you really trying to base the entire Expanding Earth “Theory” on such a small mass? Answer

Q. One primary objection to the Expanding Earth theory is the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase. How do you explain this?  Answer

Q. You assume in your book that the Earth expansion rate was initially very slow and then increased exponentially. What justification do you have for this?   Answer

Q. Do you have an explanation for where the extra mass to increase the size of the Earth is coming from? Answer

Q. Wouldn't expansion by accretion, as outlined in your book, release a lot of energy that would warm the earth’s interior to an unacceptable level?  Answer

Q. One primary objection to the Expanding Earth theory is the inability to find an actual increase of Earth's radius by modern measurements. How do you explain this? Answer

Q. One primary objection to the Expanding Earth theory is the discovery of evidence for the process of subduction.  How do you explain this? Answer

Q. One primary objection to the Expanding Earth theory is the discovery of evidence that the Earth's mantle is convecting. How do you explain this? Answer

Q. Have your ideas survived peer-review or have they been effectively refuted? Answer

Q. Aren’t your ideas without substance and pseudoscientific?  Answer



Updated 21Sept15