I asked readers of my book to send me any comments about the Reduced Gravity Earth theory and its impact for other sciences and I’ve now received hundreds of replies. Some of these are reproduced below with the newest up to 2011 at the top. Since 2011 the comments have been hosted on Facebook.
Some of the more interesting questions contained within these comments are answered in the Q & A section. You can search these comments and the rest of the site to see if anyone else had a similar comment or if the answer is already contained on the web site.
Feel free to leave your own comments which are now on Facebook.
Some of the more interesting questions contained within these comments are answered in the Q & A section. You can search these comments and the rest of the site to see if anyone else had a similar comment or if the answer is already contained on the web site.
Feel free to leave your own comments which are now on Facebook.
••••••oOo••••••
Psychological fossil of low gravity in dreams?
The expanding earth idea is a bold and very interesting challenge to current thinking, and as such demands unbiased consideration, in view of some supportive evidence. Certainly, the emotional-blackmail argument of ‘peer reviewers’ not accepting the new notion is inappropriate here and can be safely ignored. What is suggested is a paradigm shift – whereby, if correct, most people by definition are proved wrong. Jacob Bronowski reminded us that ‘Science advances when someone asks an impertinent question’ (such as – Instead of the sun going round the earth, could it be the opposite?) This lesser order of ‘peer scientists’ has shamefully vilified many pioneers of previous paradigm shifts. Science should of course constantly attempt to undermine its present stance, but we see that most ‘scientists’ – being mere followers of fashion – do not and cannot advance the pursuit of truth – they are blockers, who stunt and thwart science in its necessary advance. They waste time. We clearly need to search for anomalies, on the earth and other planets, which might support the revolutionary idea of an expanding earth.
As an innovator in sleep and dreams research (I conducted the world’s first research into ‘lucid’ dream for my PhD) I wish to state here a common phenomenon of the dream state that could conceivably be linked to an expanding earth. It is the universally experienced sense of low gravity in dreams – which is not in our daily experience. I posit the notion that the experience is a ’psychological fossil’. In our very early development, as ground-dwelling creatures, nature programmed into our brain the then effects of gravity (perhaps for REM sleep), and that factor stayed fixed over time even though the living environment changed to trees. There, bodily paralysis became essential to protect us from falling should we act out a dream. A similar example of this rule of ‘leave it be, even though it is redundant’ in our development, is that of ocular movements being exempt from REM sleep paralysis – moving eyes won’t be dangerous in the trees. Let us embrace brave new and radical suggestions in our understanding of the world and look at them without the quasi-racism of ‘theoryism’.
Keith Hearne BSc MSc PhD
••••••oOo••••••
Magnetic Reversals
Have you read Robert Felix's book Not by Fire but by Ice? I think your research goes well with his, and actually you would compliment each other. He talks about the huge amounts of material being created during magnetic field reversals or excursions (he then goes on to explain how volcanism during these events warms the seas, cools the air, and brings about ice ages). Where Felix didn't get the whole picture was in another book--Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps--where he talks about the size of dinosaurs as simply a mutation. Well, there were lots of mutations at each extinction event to create new species, but I'm inclined to believe that the earth's size and gravity certainly determined the size of life forms. Thanks for your research!
Sam Sytsma
••••••oOo••••••
Expanding Earth
What if the Planet is at a continuous growth, that similar to a Star and in it's beginning stage is nourishing. However, as it progresses in age it becomes unstable and is volatile and destructive becoming a black hole ... eventually.
Kevin Norman, Huntington Beach, Ca.
••••••oOo••••••
Nuclear Reactions in the Molten core
There is evidence supporting nuclear reactions that occur in metals under high pressure. Have you looked into LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) as the possible cause? The Earth’s molten core, exposure to gas atoms, and high pressure should be adequate to sustain such reactions.
Adolfo
••••••oOo••••••
Scaling Works
I'm understanding scaling factor pretty well now.
You've probably seen this, a very well written site that conflicts with expanding earth theory I believe, but in a novel way.
Yet, I'm for the expanding earth theory.
Jim West
NYC
••••••oOo••••••
It’s all pseudoscientific
A number of people have cited you as an authority on the concept of reduced gravity during my discussion on the expanding earth topic. This is an obvious appeal to authority, which is ironic since many seem to say during our debates that authority isn't to be trusted. One is left to assume that they only trust their authority and the authorities they quote.
At any rate, your book (1994) is one I happened upon once (once people learn of my interest in pseudo science they usually send wacky things my way). You actually write in a very well-thought and logical manner. Your ideas are without substance, but you are intelligent, nonetheless. Your primary thesis is that the Earth's gravity has increased making the life of large dinosaurs impossible, giving way to smaller, less gravity-challenged creatures. This increase in gravity, you contend, is due to the expansion of the Earth. Unfortunately, your work hasn't survived peer-review and has been effectively refuted. The gist is basic physics: if the Earth truly did expand, gravity would have decreased, not increased as you suggest.
Bill Jacks
••••••oOo••••••
Why is expansion exponential?
You assume in your book that the expansion rate was initially very slow and then increased exponentially. What justification do you have for this?
Jack Watson, Canada
••••••oOo••••••
Some objections to an expanding Earth
I can't believe in an expanding Earth. My primary objections that result in the dismissal of an expanding Earth are:
1. The lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase.
2. The inability to find an actual increase of Earth's radius by modern measurements.
3. The discovery of evidence for the process of subduction.
4. The discovery of evidence that the Earth's mantle is convecting.
Do you have any evidence that might change my mind?
Dmitri Fadeyev
••••••oOo••••••
Muscle Strength is a Cube Function
You write in your book:
As any animal becomes larger its mass (and hence its weight) varies in relation to its unit length cubed, while the area (and hence the strength) of its legs varies in relationship to its unit length squared. This mathematical relationship governs the size of all life, so as animals increase in size their strength-to-weight ratio reduces until they reach an upper size limit.
Yet both weight and strength are governed by the cube function, not one cube and the other square. No?
Math can be tricky, so maybe I'm wrong, but...
Volume is a cube function (w*l*h).
Weight is proportional to volume.
Muscle weight is proportional to volume.
Muscle mass is proportional to volume.
Muscle strength is proportional to muscle mass.
If an animal 2 feet high becomes 10 feet high, its volume (of bone and muscle and organs) goes from 8 to 1000, in weight, mass and strength.
Maybe there are problems with inertia. Inertia on the other hand would be unaffected by gravity, that would be purely a mass-related problem. So in 160 million BC, dinosaurs would want to be designed so that they have no problem with gravity, yet can handle the inertia (stop and go) of moving body parts.
A structure like a bird, could handle inertia problems. Heavy mass in the thigh, and very light in the extended limb parts. And many dinosaurs resemble avian structures.
A muscle changes in three-dimensions (including diameter) when comparing rabbit to dinosaur. A good comparison would be drop of water to cup of water, both poured on a table. The form of both will be much different, for other reasons, though still applicable to the expanding earth/dinosaur theory.
Jim West
NYC
••••••oOo••••••
Constant Comets are the answer!
NASA has evidence of a CONSTANT STREAM OF COMETS that are and always have been bombarding the earth.
More water = more mass (esp when frozen).
If comets are constant, not only could the earth have expanded -- it must have! As the mass + weight of water came in, this is the only possible extrapolated effect!
Darrin B
••••••oOo••••••
Mass
So your theory is that the mass and therefore size of the earth is increasing. I note however that you propose no explanations on your site for where this mass is coming from.
Do you have any such explanations?
Jawaid
••••••oOo••••••
Reduced gravity
I was watching a program on discovery which said the earth’s rotational speed is slowing and I came to the conclusion that centrifugal force would have made gravity less in the time of the dinosaur and that’s what might have made them tall. It could also explain how a supper continent was formed.
UK
••••••oOo••••••
Not enough mass
You stated in your book Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth that the mass increase of the Earth was due to cosmic material hitting the Earth. The Ethical Palaeontologist has refuted this with the following argument,
‘This is beginning to move away from my area of expertise. However, the most common estimate I have found is 30,000 tonnes of dust per year. Let us assume also that the dust has a density equal to that of the Earth, some 5.5 tonnes/m3.
Now, I'm going to have some margin of error here because I can't be bothered to work it out by increase of volume of the earth (can't find my scientific calculator anyway). If we assume that the surface area of the Earth is a totally flat disc of area 510,000,000 km2, then we can make a calculation. Mass over density equals volume. So 30,000 tonnes divided by 5.5 tonnes/m3 is 5,455 m3. 5,455 m3 would mulch my garden for a few years, I suppose...
But hey, let's carry it through to its conclusion. Let's divide the volume by the area to get the thickness of dust deposited in one year.
5,455 m3 divided by 510,000,000 km2 (or 510,000,000,000,000 m2). That's
1.07 x 10-11 m. Or 10.7 pm thickness of space dust deposited per year.
The diameter of a carbon atom is 154.4 pm (radius is 77.2 pm). It's going to take nearly 15 years to cover the Earth with dust the thickness of a single carbon atom. So, over the past 3.8 billion years (approximate time since the Late Heavy Bombardment), 40,660,000,000 pm of space dust (or thereabouts) has been dropped on the Earth.
41 mm. That's less than two inches. Tops. Are you really trying to base the entire Expanding Earth "Theory" on such a small mass? And this isn't even including the mass we are losing as atmospheric particles escape the Earth's gravity.’
This argument completely debunks your book.
Gary Christian,
Cardiff, Wales.
••••••oOo••••••
Gravity could have been 2/3rd's greater
Reduced gravity seems opposite 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.
After all theoretical physics thought that electricity worked in reverse that we do today! Just a thought!!
Mogan Schmidt - Wichita Ks, USA.
••••••oOo••••••
What about the atmosphere?
I have always liked the lower-gravity concept; it seems to make much sense, for a number of things (not just dinosaurs). However, I have two comments in this regard:
1. From what I remember, atmospheric concentrations are directly related to gravity of a planet. Has any calculations been done on the possible atmospheric make-up of earth with 1/3 its current gravity?
2. Knowing whether a creature is bipedal or a quadroped, a geotechnical engineer could fairly easily determine the weight of a creature by the size and depth of its footprint in a known material. Has this been done yet?
Thanks!
Victor Fajardo
S. California
••••••oOo••••••
Growth rate of the Earth
A simplified method to calculate the mass gain of the Earth.
Way back in high school do you remember the concept of Limits of a function where the limit approached zero, or a number or infinity?
Well the same type of concept can be applied to the Rate at which the Moon moves away from the Earth. Stated as a limit: In the limit as the age of the Earth approaches a very large number (near 4.6 billion year), the growth rate of the Earth becomes proportional to one over the age of the Earth per year, and the recession rate of the Moon in millimetres per year is also proportional to one over the age of the Earth.
That is the total net movement of the Moon and the Earth, each relative to the common Earth-Moon Barycenter, is very nearly the exact amount necessary to keep the Earth = Moon system exactly in balance as the mass of the Earth increases each year.
The Movement of the Moon is the addition of the growth in the radius of the Earth in millimetres per year, not centimetres per year, plus the measured movement of 38.2 +/- 0.7 mm per year. The total is between 41.7 mm and 41.8 mm per year increase in the distance from the center of the Moon to the center of the Earth. This amount requires a mass change of 6 x 10^14 kg per year to raise the Moon. In addition the Earth must move toward the barycenter by a smaller amount which is about 0.3 mm per year. This movement also requires another 6 x 10^14 kg per year. Adding together, the total change in mass of the Earth is 2 times 6 x 10^14 = 1.2 z 10^15 kg per year, not the higher value of 10^16 kg per year as shown in "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth".
The age of the Earth, the recession rate of the Moon, and the annual change in the mass of the Earth are all interdependent calculations.
Simplifying 5.98 x 10^24 kg / 1.2 x 10^15 kg / year = 4.98 x 10^9 years. This is a little low as it needs to be as old or older than the average of the 70 meteorites that are used to age the Earth. If you use 1.3 x 10^15 kg per year you get an age of 4.6 x 10^9 years. close enough.
For recession rate 384,401 km / 41.7 mm per year = 9.22 x 10^9.
Remember half of the growth went to move the Moon, so the value will be twice the age of the Earth. 9.22 / 2 = 4.61 x 10^9 years. The value will be off a bit by the ratio of M1 / (M1 + m2) which as a number is 81.3005 / 82.3005 = 0.98785.
So 0.98785 x 4.61 = 4.55 x 10^9 years.
Again close enough.
What should be noticed here is that if you over estimate the growth rate of the Earth by a factor of 10, you cut the age of the Earth by a factor of ten, and the Moon would have to move away from the Earth ten times as fast as the current measured rate of recession.
The mistake is understandable in that the opening up of the sea floor spreading centers is measured in centimeters per year, not millimeters per year, but what is being missed is the thermal coefficient of contraction of the sea floor as the magma cools for many kilometers laterally away from the spreading centers on both sides. This contraction during a continuous cooling process greatly exadurates the actual spreading of the sea floor, and thus overstates the calculated increase in the radius of the Earth each year.
Mike Clark, Golden Colorado, USA
••••••oOo••••••
A plausible mechanism
Here is my ideas on how an earth can expand.
Dark matter.
Dark matter has mass but does not interact with electromagnetic fields. This means that it can pass through electron orbitals. This means it can pass straight through earth. My guess is that dark matter is what composes ‘visible’ matter. So while it passes through earth, the intense pressure and heat assemble the dark matter into electrons, protons, and neutrons inside the earth. This newly constructed matter now has its own electromagnetic field pushing out the matter around it causing the earth to expand.
James ? South Jordan
••••••oOo••••••
Dino size and meteors
Two thoughts,
First, when studying dino tracks in mud, has anyone ever thought the imprints reflect a lighter animal?
Second, if the earth was hit by a large meteor in the time of the dinos, how big does a projectile need to be to alter the rotation of a planet in orbit?
Oh, one more thought ...isn't the whole universe expanding?
Debbie Chastain
Whidbey Island, Washington State
Whidbey Island, Washington State
••••••oOo••••••
Satellite Imagery & Gravity
I will look for supporting docs from the wealth of satellite imagery. Surely if this is true there will be irrefutable satellite confirmation.
Another possibility as to the dinosaurs growing large, like the largest animal living today, the blue whale whose size is supported by its environment, water, is that gravity is a part of the force that on the subatomic level orders our universe.
Gravity is projected to be a resonance and as such it is within the realm of possibility that such a resonance was occurring that put gravity in abeyance. Science fiction but interesting?
Kate Sisco
USA
USA
••••••oOo••••••
A gradual Reduction in the speed of light
A gradual Reduction in the speed of light of the universe would be the same as an increase in Mass everywhere, an increase in gravity everywhere, an increase in the physical distance between the earth and moon. The change of speed of light in the universe IS the change in the curvature of space-time of our universe.
Our universe is flattening out. "Ice ages" are the rhythmic bouncing of space-time most likely caused by The AGN in the core of our galaxy. And I feel that our AGN will be letting off a little Steam Soon.
I also think we have very little time left to put our affairs, so to speak, in order.
E=MC^2
E=MC^2
E = (M*N)*((C^2)/N)
With a Reduction Of SOL..C, Mass Increases. The earth Grows.
Mass is Just an electromagnetic Field. Not particles. Mass's EM field Just Gets bigger.
David Fuller
California
California
••••••oOo••••••
Planet Earth
The Great Planet Earth
I am no scientist. In fact, it was my worst subject in school. Does one need to be a rocket engineer to understand the changes that have existed from Earth's Birth until present, or to foresee its future. By the way Earth does have a future unlike the rest of the planets in our solar system. Simple addition of the relitive explains this explicitly! Global warming and the overuse of oil is harming the natural process of Earth's cycles. I read with great interest your comments, but must disagree in part. The Earth is only temporarily moving or pulling away from the moon due to expansion and growth inside the core. This has been going on since Earth's birth and shall continue on its journey for all eternity. It can be equated, and I do frown on using such an example to a women's life cycle. At least to me it seems very plausible. At this particular moment, the core is causing expansion,as the axis shifts one degree the ice sheets become thinner,and meltdown occurs slowly. Still awed by earth's beauty, I see this as a natural course of events hastened by man's waste of all the natural elements, by pollution, the incorrect use of fission and fusion,and by this very exceptional invention that allows me to contact you with my thoughts. The Universe and Planet Earth, expands and contracts! Earth rejuvenates itself every billion years. The last Ice age ended about 12,000 yrs ago. On a timeline, this is exactly the length of time that an imaginary arm on the nuclear clock moves 1 degree. To some 1 degree seems insignificant, to others,that are attuned its a 'big deal'. It in itself can cause climate alterations. The existential evidence that their is much more carbon dioxide in our air now is a sign that humans have effected the natural order of things but not as much thought,natural order of things will occur regardlessly. Change reforc, equals: Core=teutonic plates=inversion=expellsion=rebirth: can this alone trigger a new Ice age? Was this reason for the extinction of the Dinosaurs and not a comet or meteor? Can this in itself produce the NEW EDEN? A climate that is semi-tropical as it once was? If we were to make a timeline from Earth's birth through to this year,would we see,that expansion,growth, cataclysmic changes,upheaval,and climate changes, are simply Earth's Natural process. We as a species, can hasten this process or slow it down but we cannot alter that which has been for eons pre-ordained. When Earth was first Birthing, the moon was much farther away,the stars were in different positions then they are now. Isn't it possible that this is all just natural course of events? I envision the Universe as the INTERNET! A Web each Site has its very own globes of matter,stars etc. Don't laugh, I used to envision it as a WHEEL: JUST LIKE a Cog: A Universe that had become defunct for in the beginning, all the planets were in the same orbit as Earth or a bit closer to the sun and just like a wheel were in perfect alignment: The sun then shown on all the planets equally and life exists everywhere.
F. Harkness
New York
New York
••••••oOo••••••
Expanding your mind a bit too far
How about this:
If it is possible for the earth to grow in size the way you suggest than it would be possible that the moon begun as a marble sized rock and accumulated dust and debris until it reached its present size.
What if what you suggest were even remotely possible: the force of earths previous or present day gravity is nothing compared to the previous or present day gravity of the sun! So if the earth would have accumulated enough matter to grow significantly in size then the sun would have grown to the size of about Venus' orbit!!
My personal opinion is that the size of animals is derived from the amount and availability of food available, the number and size of predators, the amount of oxygen in the air and the available living space.
For example: It's a known fact that a small size Mammoth (pony-size) lived on an enclosed stretch of land in northern part of Russia. Another fact is that bone and tissue structures are indeed capable of carrying and moving very heavy loads, like dinosaurs.
Don't underestimate the power and strength of living structures and the capability and endurance of natural resources given eons of time and a world of free space to grow and thrive.
I think you may have missed a few scientific courses to base your proclamations on. The numbers are misused, the facts are distorted and science is ripped out of context.
The thoughts are novel and unique but that's all. It's nice to talk about these ideas but they have NO viable scientific base. This is clearly another case of pseudo science.
Let's just say that i think the workings of the universe, and the intricacies of biology are not your realm of expertise. I'm sorry: i cannot agree with your ideas at this time. You have yet to convince me with hard facts and more viable theories. More study should be put in actual science and less in presentation of ideas and assumptions.
Good luck!
D. Willems
Netherlands
Netherlands
Page updated 21Sep15
