I asked readers of my book to send me any comments about the Reduced Gravity Earth theory and its impact for other sciences. I’ve now received hundreds of replies and some of these are reproduced below. The newest are at the top.
I’ve answered some of the more interesting questions contained within these comments in the Q & A section. I’m fairly slow at answering some of the questions so you might need to look again in a few weeks.
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 but please read the advice in Your Comments before you do so.
••••••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.
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/solution.html
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
Answer: See my answer in the Questions & Answers Q 1
••••••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
Answer: See my answer in the Questions & Answers Q 7
••••••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
Answer: See my answers in the Questions & Answers Q 9, Q 12, Q 13, Q 14.
••••••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
Answer: See my answer in the Questions & Answers Q 6
••••••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).
http://www.panspermia.org/streaks.htm
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
Answer: See my answer in the Questions & Answers Q 10
••••••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
Answer: See my answer in the Questions & Answers Q 4.
••••••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,
