Welcome to the (archived) comments page.
Ray Soper from Sydney Australia
Expanding Earth book
Stephen. I have been interested in radical ideas in geology over the past 20 years or so, so I went to the 1983 expanding earth symposium organised by Warren Carey in 1983. Personally I found his ideas compelling, but the "establishment" resists as they did Copenicus, Galileo etc. Your book is a very accessible explanation of the concept, and your introduction of the dinosaur stuff does provide a very interesting confirmatory angle. I also found your discussion of the processes of atmosphere accumulation as the planet expands and grows its gravity fiels very interesting - of course it must have been like that. The only serious issue that I would differ on relates to your invoking the Big Bang stuff - You should check out Eric J Lerner and his 1989 book "There Never Was a Big Bang" (on line search will find it, I think at Amazon). Lerner argues that the red shift is caused by a different phenomenon and actually is not evidence for the galaxies flying apart at a helluva rate. Other radical ideas in geology that are part of the whole thing are John Elliston's ideas about the formation and differentiation of rocks, how at least some granites are formed by colloid crystallisation processes known to physical chemists, but ignored by most geologists who stick doggedly to classicist ideas. Tim O'Driscoll has made an important contribution with his lineament tectonics ideas. And Haddon King ("The Rocks Speak" published by the AusIMM) gives a wonderful account of his in-field observations that contradict conclusions about rocks drawn from peering down a microscope. A wonderful intellectual adventure, and an area where we can participate in the excitement of exploring bold new ideas.
Ray Soper from Sydney
I noticed that you did not invoke what I found to be the simplest supporting evidence of all. That is, if you reassemble all the continents on one corner of the current sized earth, you end up with Pangea 1 - then you could reassemble the continents so that the edges of Pangea 1 are now assembled in the middle of Pangea 2. And so on. It simply doesn't make sense - the only way that you can have all the continents fitting together, as they so obviously do, is on a globe of smaller radius.
Dennis Gordon from Philadelphia, Pa
No expanding Earth
If the earth was less massive enough to have gravity low
enough to significantly effect dinosaur size limits, there
would not have been enough gravity to hold an atmosphere,and
the extra mass that we have today would have to be built up
on the surface of the earth, making the fossils so much
deeper than they really are as to make them unreachable.
Gaines Johnson from West Africa
Dinosaur size - atmospherics
I found your site while researching. I have difficulty with any expanding earth theory because of two points: 1) If the earth expanded, it would still have the same mass and same gravitational pull, although objects on the surface would experience less pull as they moved away from the center of the gravity well. 2) The earth in the dinosaur's day would had had to shrink from something larger than it is today, because the present gravity is too much to support them. So, do we have an expanding then contracting earth? I would, however, like to propose an alternative possibility: If the earth's atmosphere was several atmospheres heavier back in the dino days, due to the accumulation of Helium gas given off by alpha emission of radioactive decay, which would have been much greater in those time, than present, could the resulting increased surface pressures of air support those larger body sizes? I'm seriously interested in looking at that possibility, as it would explain a lot of other things. I have some materials you might be interested in reading at the Christian Geology Ministry site at http://www.kjvbible.org
Harrison Salzman from New York
I just found this site, and I have to say that this is a very intriguing theory. However, I have one query-where did the extra mass come from?
Also, the example of the "gaping holes in the ocean floor" that you talked about is invalid-the sea floors are constantly being created as molten material pushes up from the midoceanic rifts, and destroyed at the edges of the continental plates. Thus, the problem simply did not exist.
An aside to the person who posted here before me-
I am utterly and totally disgusted by your reference to the "establishment". In no way, shape or form can the scientists of today be compared to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. The onus of proof is on the person who makes a claim; While Galileo and the other scientists of his era did indeed have scientific proof as to their theories, you will find that many people today do not even bother to test their hypotheses, as if the world owed them acceptance of their ideas. If someone wishes to make a claim, simply back up your material with evidence!
Kate Henrioulle from San Diego, CA
First, it would be great if you showed the dates next to comments. Currently it is hard to tell which comments are most recent. Thank you to Harrison Salzman for bringing up the contradiction to the widely accepted view of how oceanic floor is created. And as a note to the site editor, your arguments would be much more powerful if you cited specific articles and/or individuals instead of "many earth scientists."
I enjoyed reading your page, but your minimal concrete support of ideas decreased your credibility greatly.
Thomas D'Alimonte from Nashua, NH USA
Neat idea, but many consequences of it don't fit
While I find the expanding earth theory intriguing and the physical evidence for curve-fitting of the continents very worrisome for the drift folks, I also find the expanding theory so full of huge holes that it cannot explain your theory on decreased gravity on the dinosaurs and causes the theory itself to be implausible.
First off, on the webpage for the expanded theory demonstration, they show how the curves of the current continents fit together at 150 million years ago, when a balloon of 12" is shrunk to 7".
Using these measurements, the volume of the earth would have increased 5-fold since 150 million years ago. (Volume of a sphere = 4*(pi*r^3)/3) Thus, if we consider the rate of change of the volume of the earth to be a constant, as you proclaim in the text, then the earth would have been the size of a basketball, 188 million years ago! No where _near_ the current 4.6 _b_illion year estimated age of the earth. It doesn't even get you back to the beginnings of the dinosaur fossil record, nonetheless life itself, nonetheless the beginnings of the earth.
And there is no sign of this INCREDIBLY massive amount of deposition on earth, nor any planet in the solar system. You are talking about 20% of the current earth's volume falling on it every 30 million years, for the earth to have multipled in size 5-fold in just 150 million years. There is no evidence for this kind of bombardment anywhere. If it had been, life would never had survived or arisen. The earth's surface would be a constant mess thru all ages. And going from 4.6 billion years ago, it would have yielded a solid planet almost the size of the gas giant Neptune! (25 times the size of the current Earth)
Also, if this were a constant bombardment as you state, there would be iridium evident in all the fossil records rather than just at key points of bombardment like at the K-T boundary.
But the result does fit well for you. Since gravity exerted from an object, the earth is a function of its mass and inverse of the distance from the center of the object squared, then a 5-fold decrease in mass, with only a .4 times decrease in distance from the center of the earth to the surface, would yield a gravity of only 56% of today's. So indeed animals could be at least twice as big as they are today.
But there are other problems as well, with no evidence to back them up. If the mass of the earth increased 5 fold, the laws of conservation of momentum would dictate that the speed of the earth around the sun would decrease as well, meaning the length of the year now is 5 times longer than it was back then, only 2.4 months! This 73 day year is even shorter than Mercury's 88 day year! Speaking of Mercury, somewhere orbital mechanics and the conservation of angular velocity would most likely change the distance of the earth to the sun out the 'life range' it currently sits in, with 5-fold changes in mass.
But even if we discount the adding of so great an amount of matter to the earth as being plausible, the evidence for the theory is still interestingly compelling. The continent matching and sea ridge parallels are too coincidental.
So what if the mass didn't increase? Maybe planetary forces caused earth to change radius due to heat expansion or other driving forces. Unfortunately this helps your dinosaur theory naught. If the earth expanded with a constant mass, the gravity exerted at the surface would decrease, not increase, with the increase in size, so gravity would have been higher in the past, making it harder for large creatures, not easier. No help there for the dinosaurs.
Another problem with a smaller earth, was where did they keep all the water? Eliminate 69% of the surface of the earth (surface area=4pi*r^2), all of it water-based, leaves only 6% of the present oceans to hold all the water. So either the oceans were 166 times higher than today (in higher orbit than the shuttle can go) or the whole planet was under water as of 150 million years ago. Or 94% of all the water on earth showed up in the last 150 million years. Not bloody likely, I'm afraid.
Of course as well, you even state this yourself, there are no known forces to support planetary expansion without mass increase.
I think you'll have to look for your solutions to the gigantism problem elsewhere. Gigantism has been seen all throughout the fossil record going in ups and downs. It seems more related to evolutionary phases linked to food and environmental pressures than to physical laws. The last of the mammoths were found to be midgets on an island that just wouldn't support large creatures as well as smaller ones. Once dinosaurs were gone, mammals could survive in larger form and got bigger rather than smaller, as your theory would expect. Though they went thru their own phase of gigantism later, they first grew when they shouldn't have. Man grows taller each year due to changes in diet, that are far faster than any perception of gravity changes would cause. I was in Japan 17 years ago and hit my head on doorways made for much smaller men than the current crop of tall Japanese kids who eat our diet more than their traditional diet.
Thomas "D'A" D'Alimonte Missing Pieces
work: 617-693-9922 eFAX.com: 978-359-6522
"Resistance is NEVER futile!"
Barry E. DiGregorio from Lockport, New York
Could a mini-black hole be the explanation for increased mass of the Earth?
I have a theory: A mini black hole resides inside of Earth, and is the culprit behind the Chixulub impact event...
The large size of the dinosaurs and life on Earth at the time of the Cretaceous-Tertiary surely poses an interesting scientific dilemma. If we are certain that these massive creatures could not have existed on Earth today due to Earth's increased gravity, the question is clearly a focused one - what could possibly cause the earth to increase in mass? Expansion does not really address this issue.
There can be little doubt that the Earth has been expanding for millions upon millions of years. We know the super continent of Pangea existed. We can run computer simulations of this quite easily and see how Earth's land mass broke apart and spread out to current postions on our globe today. So where could the extra mass have come from?
Is it possible that a mini black hole was responsible for the KT boundary event? We know that up to that time, the dinosaurs were still quite massive, and Earth may have had less mass as the expanding Earth hypothesis implies. So the problem is, how do you get an instantly more massive Earth at the time of the KT event? A mini black hole would solve this problem at once. The crater at Chicxulub could support this notion. Also, anomolous regions such as the Bermuda Triangle have been under suspicion for years as having some gravity altering field surrounding the region, that opens "hole" every now and then.
Increased mass from a mini black hole could explain many things. The dinosaurs would have gradually died off as a result of not being able to move around efficiently in their search for food. Also, some researchers have published that the extinction of the dinosaurs and other forms of life took over two million years and was more prominent in the southern hemisphere than in the north due to the proximity of the Chicxulub impact.
Is it possible to look for a gravity anomally such as a mini black hole that may lay somewhere deep inside the Earth? Is it possible that a mini black hole might be "floating" somehwere in Earth's interior setting off Earth quake and volcanic events?
Barry E. DiGregorio
Jim Holland from TN
There is no physical way possible that the gravity of the earth could change without destroying all life on earth. This site is an example of the lack of scientific knownledge in the US today.
Mike Ock from obviously not the same planet as you....
Try bringing this up in a public scientific forum sometime..
Sir: I fully expect that this post will be edited or removed, therefore, let the shame of the world be upon you for masquerading such frivolous and silly fictions as truth.
Try bringing this up in a public scientific forum sometime, i.e. one populated by active researchers and not pseudo-scientists like yourself, and you'll get laughed offstage so fast it'll make your head spin.
This site is shameful. You deserve the right to speek your mind freely... I fully support that... but I hold you in the same esteem as I do such entities as the Nazis, the KKK, and Scientologists; obviously underinformed and overzealous, using carefully crafted lies to woo the unsuspecting and/or ignorant bystander.
Your geologic theories harken back to a day when humankind did not know 1% what it knows today about vulcanism.
Further, your arguments about the massive weight of the animal lack any credibility because they completely neglect the structure of the beast; you compare the quadruped to a biped, and pretend that a scaled up human is "proof enough" that such a beast could not have walked under today's gravity. Such a creature had not only four legs, it had a TOTALLY UNKNOWN tissue structure. Your ignorance is apparent in every word you write. Nothing I say here is likely to change your mind nor any of your beleivers (if indeed you have any), since you are clearly living in your own little fantasy. Your arguments are a sham.
Please do the rest of the world a favor and get a library card, seek mental help, or just throw yourself under a moving bus. You sicken me; I spit on you.
Dick Milkin from Cumminmi, Idaho
I have a theory: You are a gay homo. A mini black hole resides inside of your head, and is the culprit behind your incredibly gay ramblings... The large size of your anus surely poses an interesting scientific dilemma. If we are certain that these massive creatures could not have penetrated your anus, the question is clearly a focused one - what could possibly cause your anus to increase in size? Expansion does not really address this issue. There can be little doubt that your ass has been expanding for millions upon millions of years. We know the super continent of Pangea existed inside your colon. We can run computer simulations of this quite easily and see how your ass spread out to current postions in gay ways. So where could the extra ass have come from? We know that up to that time, your ass was still quite massive, and Earth may have had less mass as the expanding Earth hypothesis implies. So the problem is, how do you get an instantly more massive Earth at the time of the KT event?  The rest of this comment has been deleted, as the original author was obviously having delusions of clue. This site is gay. The people who agreed with it are morons. AOL is a satanic empire.
you are silly...
Dinosaurs, and indeed much land based prehistoric life, achieved surprisingly massive sizes in comparison to present day life. This ability to achieve gigantic sizes conflicts with studies which indicate that these large Dinosaurs were much more agile than they should have been. It is a mystery which is emphasised by the paradox between the Dinosaurs' size and lifestyle.
Translation: I didn't look beyond the the dino-comic book i read when i was 5, and have built my life's work around proving that the earth was once the size of a pea. Also, I am gay.
Many people have asked why the Dinosaurs were so large, but an examination of the size limits on today's life indicates that a reduced gravity during the Dinosaur's time would have allowed them to grow to gigantic sizes.
size *LIMITS*? The largest land animals today aren't restricted by a hard "size limit". And your intuition is way off. Plus youre way gay.
One (extremely simplistic and childish) explanation for this reduced gravity would be if the earth was smaller in both size and mass during the Dinosaurs' time. There is geological evidence (NOT) for the earth's increase in diameter since the Dinosaur's time - an expanding earth. The book Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth provides further details. The text of this book is now available online (English only) so you can see why I believe this theory holds an astonishing truth.... that I don't know shit about science, I'm just a blowhard with a dumb theory.
The web site gives a brief introduction to some of the main concepts behind the theory. There are also links to other sites about gigantic dinosaurs and their lifestyles and the evidence for the Expanding Earth theory, a comments section, a quiz and some suggestions for further reading. Warning, its all extremely gay, and blatantly false. Enjoy!
Peter McIntosh from Dover, England
why Dinosaurs REALLY grew to such a size.
If you would care to read WORLDS IN COLLISION and EARTH IN UPHEAVAL by Immanueal Velikovsky
you would have a better idea of where the dinosaurs came from.
what i am about to type you will scoff at but it certainly fits
the low gravity requirements of the size of dinosaurs.
Earth was in near colission with mars. Earth, being the larger body, stole all the water from mars. (evidence that water was once on mars is irrefutable but scientists cannot give an explanation of where it went.) Earth also stole the wildlife from mars: the dinosaurs. Some of the creatures from that period survived but the massive dinosaurs could not. Mars was once in a closer orbit to the sun and was knocked into its present position by earth.
It all sounds so outrageously fanciful and stupid, doesn't it? Well so did the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. For over 1000 we were taught the the sun and stars revolved around the earth.
That fact was 'irrefuteable' to the then scientists.Also the fact that the earth was flat was also gospel. Heavier than earth vehicles could NEVER fly, images could NEVER be transmitted through the atmosphere..... etc
When we finally land on Mars (oh yes, Man could NEVER stand the velocity required for a vehicle to leave this planet) I am sure we will find the evidence to prove that dinosaurs came from Mars.
By the way, I am not a crackpot. I have been studying this same problem for 50 years and my solution, thanks to the eminent science of Velikovsky and numerous others, is the only possible truth.
Peter McIntosh Bsc.
Jim March from San Francisco Bay Area
The OTHER way to get less gravity...
What about Velikofsky's ideas, crazy as they sound?
If the earth was a moon of Jupiter, tidally locked with one face in and in close orbit, the single supercontinent could have pointed straight in at Jupiter and recieved a "vertical sucking effect" of Jupiter's gravity partially offsetting the earth's?
At current ocean levels you'd have a problem with water "sloshing upwards" onto the landmass BUT you'd need a serious vapor canopy for the necessary greenhouse effects to keep it warm that far out from the sun.
The same asteroid/comet that they say "killed the dinos" may have actually knocked us out of orbit, we grabbed another moon for ourselves on the way out and ended up where we are now?
Note that the single landmass started breaking up right at that same era...with Jupiter's pull gone, there was noting keeping the earth so "assymetrical" and it would have naturally shifted around as a result.
Ya, it's wild, but doesn't it make more sense than added mass to the earth?
Jim March from SF Bay Area
The Earth couldn't have sucked 400+ million years worth of fossil record off of Mars during one single close pass. Sorry, ain't no way.
screw you (screw you) from
screw you jerky. Dinosuars where big because they ate alot of protein and broccoli.
Brad (Not a chance) from Here
If the Earth did expand, it may be that the fossils burried inside the rock expanded as well, and dinosaur bones only appear large. If you seriously belive that the earth expands, maybe fossils did too and dinosaurs were actually small animals.
But since this theory is totally false, we can safely say that dinosaurs were huge animals on a normal-sized earth.