Here are my answers to some of the more interesting questions about my book that have been asked in the many comments.
••••••oOo••••••
Q. Have your ideas survived peer-review or have they been effectively refuted?
A. One of the reasons I published my book was to allow anyone to try to prove my theories wrong. I'd already discussed the concepts with various scientists before then but the book opened it up to world-wide peer-review.
Many people have tried to refute the ideas but I've never found one that provided the necessary scientific evidence. Some of the best of these suggestions are reproduced here, along with my answer, so you can judge for yourself if my ideas have been effectively refuted.
••••••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?
A. The reduction of bone and muscle mass in the reduced gravity of space is a confirmation of the Reduced Gravity Earth theory. An animal's bones and muscles don't need to be as strong in a reduced gravity so they waste away to suit this reduced gravity. This is the effect that we see with a man in space. In a reduced gravity all animals would need less bone and muscle mass to achieve the same size.
••••••oOo••••••
Q. Isn’t the suggestion of an ancient Earth spinning more rapidly a more plausible explanation for a reduction in gravity?
A. We can calculate the reduced gravity on the ancient Earth from the relative size of ancient life compared to present day life. These calculations indicate that gravity was about 0.3 the present gravity 300 million years ago, increasing to 0.5g during the dinosaurs’ time with gravity gradually increasing over time to its present day value.
The gravity reduction due to the Earth’s present rotation is only 0.003g. The Earth would have to spin very fast to reduce gravity to 0.5g. Evidence from Devonian corals indicates that there were 400 days per year about 388 million years ago which would speed up the Earth’s rotation so there were only 22 hours in a day if the Earth was in the same orbit around the Sun. If the Earth was spinning 1.1 times faster than now the force due to this faster rotation would still only be 0.004g - this is nowhere near enough to affect the scale of life.
On the other hand, on an Increasing Mass Expanding Earth the calculated gravity would be very similar to gravity predicted from ancient life. This is why I think the most probable cause for a Reduced Gravity Earth is an Increasing Mass Expanding Earth.
••••••oOo••••••
Q. Has anyone determined the weight of a creature by the depth of its footprint in a known material?
A. A few people have asked me similar questions. One correspondent mentioned that Alan Turing, the ‘Father of British Computing’, is reported as considering similar ideas in the book, Alan Turing:The Enigma by Andrew Hodges, so you are in good company with these thoughts.
Unfortunately no one seems to have been able to put this idea into practice. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it is difficult to determine the properties of a 'known material' that may be hundreds of millions of years old. Or perhaps the results show that the dinosaurs were much lighter than seems possible in our present gravity so the results were discarded.
••••••oOo••••••
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?
A. Muscle strength is proportional to the cross-sectional area of muscle. It makes no difference how long the muscle is. A muscle’s strength depends on the area in tension and not its volume.
You could try a little experiment. Load something until it breaks. A piece of string could represent some muscle perhaps. Then lengthen the string and try again. I think it will break at a similar load. The length makes no difference to its strength.
••••••oOo••••••
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?
A. My ancient Earth reconstructions, based on the geological evidence for Earth expansion, show an exponentially increasing rate of expansion. The graph of Earth’s ‘Changing Diameter From Geological Data’ shown in chapter 4 of my book is based on these computer generated reconstructions and it is clear this is exponential.
In addition to this, once the geological data is extrapolated over the 4,600 million years of the estimated age of the Earth it is also clear the expansion must be exponential as shown in the graph of ‘Comparison of Earth Formation Theories’ shown in chapter 5. This all fits the concept of continuous accretion from cosmic material as explained in chapter 5.
Also, the evidence for increasing gravity based on the scale effects on ancient life indicates an exponentially increasing gravity, as shown in the graph ‘Gravity Variation Estimated From Scale of Prehistoric Life’ shown in chapter 2 of my book, and this agrees with the geological evidence for an exponentially Increasing Mass Expanding Earth.
••••••oOo••••••
Q. If the Earth truly did expand, wouldn't gravity have decreased, not increased as you suggest?
A. The smaller moons and rocky planets are all smaller in size and mass with a reduced gravity. Look at the Moon and Mars for example. The Moon has a radius of 1737 km with a surface gravity of 0.16g. Mars has a radius of 3,396 km with a surface gravity of 0.38g. Why would you think the ancient smaller Earth would be any different?
We can calculate gravity on the ancient Earth using Newton's formula to show that surface gravity will remain directly proportional to radius - assuming that density remains constant. So an ancient Earth with 50% current radius would have a surface gravity 50% of the Earth's current gravity if the density remained constant.
••••••oOo••••••
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?
A. The most widely accepted model for the formation of the Earth is the accretion of cosmic material into a planet sized body. Most people believe this happened rapidly so it was complete by about 4,000 million years ago, and the Earth has been a constant diameter since then.
Various evidence suggests that this rapid formation is much too fast. It is much more likely to be an ongoing formation were cosmic mass has been added to the Earth in a process of Continuous Mass Accretion of cosmic material.
••••••oOo••••••
