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.
