Errors regarding Saturn, and regarding the Mid-Ocean Ridges

The statement that Saturn has stronger gravity at its surface than earth, due to its greater mass and size, is incorrect. The gravitational force at the surface of Saturn is only slightly greater than at Earth's surface. This is because the greater mass of Saturn is off-set by its much lesser density than Earth, and much larger diameter (causing its surface to by farther from its center of mass).

Another error is the idea that mountains should form at the mid-ocean ridges, where the crust is weakest, and not at the continental margins where it is thicker. The reason that the mid-ocean ridges are not uplifted is that the upward force is directed laterally for thousands of miles, encountering insufficient resistance to pile up as mountains. The force of gravity is too great and the placticity of the sea floor crust to great to permit uplift. The continental margins and the great mass of more rigid rock behind them are barriers which result in uplift. This is what causes the Andes Mts. in South America. Mountains CAN occur in the mid-ocean where upwelling of mantle material is so rapid that it spews out as lava to build volcanic islands, as in Hawaii.

The expanding earth is an optical illusion

I think I've got it figured out. Actually it only appears that the earth has expanded. What happaned is that the earth and all the species on it are and were as they appear, except for man. Man, and his ancestors have been evolving ever smaller. This means that if we were, say twenty feet tall, the dinasours would appear not to be so large. Also, the size of the earth, to our giant human ancestors, would likewise be proportionally smaller, (but only in appearence).

The truth of my theory is vividly clear if we continue to gradually evolve down to the size of an ant, which would make the earth seem to expand to the size of the sun! Thus it's all a matter of perspective.

The cause of human shrinking is not too mysterious. We know that the human brain has been expanding as we evolved. The brain's need to grow, relative to the rest of the body, clearly introduces a selective evolutionary advantage to shrinking of the rest of the body.

John Field
San Francisco

Lighter Gravity

One of the effects of lower gravity in the past would be greater loss of atmosphere to space. Something kept the Earth from the fate of Mars, whose lesser gravity allowed most of its air to be lost.

Huge flying dinosaurs implies not only lower gravity but also sufficient air density to hold them up. Large land animals would also need sufficient oxygen pressure to power their huge muscles.

I like your expanding-earth idea, in spite of our lack of an explanation for the expansion. But what replenished the air before the expansion?

Furthermore, why the exponential function? Most importantly, why did it start after 4 billion years plus of a static radius?

Bill Parkyn
Los Angeles

Congratulations!

Stephen,

I must congratulate you on a very fine piece of Sherlock Holmesian sleuthing into an area of scientific enquiry which has been neglected for far too long. Your deductive logic and reasoning regarding the sizes of prehistoric animals such as the dinosaurs, relative to a smaller Earth, is worthy of the Great Detective himself! Please ignore the attacks of those who have been brainwashed with dogma, and fear to reconsider their entrenched positions since so many got their degrees by absorbing all they were told without question.

Thank God that there are still a few original and fearless people - like yourself, Carey, Maxlow, et al, who are not afraid to think outside the academic square! No criticism from me, Stephen - I concur with every word, since I too, although only a mere scientific dabbler, have considered the same implications of gravity upon size myself, and have drawn similar conclusions. If I might just raise two points? 1) What are the expansion effects (if any) of and upon the Earth's rotation, and, 2) Where does the Moon come into this scenario? It must have been a much more recent "gravity-capture" than hitherto believed - unless it, too, has expanded?

Look forward to reading much more of your excellent ground-breaking work! Nil Illigitimus Carborundum!

Gerry Forster
Queensland, Australia

Dinosaurs & Lower Gravity

Interesting theory: allowing for dinosaurs to be both huge and agile when gravity is lower than now found.

I first introduced this idea to my physics teacher in the mid-60s and promptly got laughed at. However, I'm surprised some pure scientist hadn't thought of trying to discover if gravity could (have) change(d) and what conditions could produce it.

We were all fascinated by Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" and other related books back before Star-Trek took hold. His research covered a number of unexplained work on large items (mostly stone slabs weighing 200 tons or more, ie in Egypt during the pyramid building times) that was abandoned. These also suggest a change in gravity, no??

Now, if some young brain students were given the following hypothesis: gravity is not constant, or has been subject to alteration: what could cause this? And let them loose to come up with plausible scientific proofs, we'd perhaps get somewhere. It would also need a study of the effect of gravity changes (earthquakes, etc). One possibility: a large planet near earth: maybe it's still out there, but now far away? Where are you cosmotic trajectory experts, eh?

Just an idle thought....

Paul Morel
Alberta, Canada

Expanding Earth

I think it is clear to the impartial observer that the earth has indeed expanded. However, the issue of increased mass in the required amounts is questionable because of the deleterious effect that surely such an increase, albeit gradual, would have on the earth's orbit around the sun, not to mention the moon's orbit about the earth. So, given that our hypothetical earth has not increased in mass enough to affect gravity, I propose the following scenario: The earth was one half it's present size with a higher spin rate. This higher rotation rate countered the full effects of gravity; thereby permitting land animals of various types to reach gigantic proportions. During a particularly heavy period of impacts from meteors two major events occurred. The first was that the moon's rotation (at one time it did have rotation) and the earth's rotation were both sufficiently slowed that the moon lost the energy to continue rotation and gradually became tide locked. The moon's orbit was slightly affected. This new orbit took it closer to the earth in general and the south pole in particular. The repeated passes of the moon near the still rapidly spinning earth caused the earth's liquid core to spasm at the south pole (hence, Antarctica doesn't appear to have moved when in fact it was the first to move!), pulling the earth into an elliptical sphere, ripping Antarctica away from the rest of the land mass. An oscillation was induced causing the earth to expand as it's liquid core pushed down and up for aeons. The oscillation, such as that which would be caused by a magnet inside a hollow, water filled balloon going through alternating opposite magnetic fields, caused the earth to expand in spasms. The earth wobbled heavily as the expansion increased. The rapidly spinning molten core cooled enough to partially solidify. The spin energy was transferred to the newly partially solid magma and the earth slowed it's rotation. Think of it as a skater spinning rapidly who slows quickly as he opens his arms. The earth and moon slowly reached equilibrium but the present wobble of the earth and the lunar orbit are witness to these ancient occurrences. Slowed rotation allowed for greater apparent gravity as well as a denser atmosphere due to lessened centrifugal force.

The fact that more of the earth was taking up atmospheric space also made the atmosphere denser. The weather effects were certainly enough to wipe out most macroscopic life on earth.

However, if the earth expanded without an increase in mass, shouldn't it have huge hollow pockets inside? Yes. If these gigantic pockets are located then it would lend credence to this theory. The only thing I can say to support this is that there is a "discontinuity" in the earth's interior which has been measured and explained by geologists as a matter of dissimilar core material. What if this "dissimilar" core material is one of many giant pockets of gas? The water balloon analogy I used could then be modified to include a chemical reaction in the "water" causing gas bubbles to form as the interior magnet oscillated. These "bubbles" would also aid not only in the expansion but in the rotation slowing as well if they were concentrated in a particular area away from the center of the interior. These "bubbles" would explain much about why the continents were torn apart along there present boundaries but that is the subject of another debate.

The issue is that all of us who study science are taught about the close minded reaction of past societies to new ideas. The very text books that are quick to ridicule old scientific ideas are the same that lay down dogmas of the present as if they were fixed. Believe me, nothing has changed. The earth expanded but it is highly embarrassing for an entire global community of geologists to admit they were wrong. First, somebody VERY influential among them must believe this new idea. Second, something very "new" and "high tech" must be used to present the expanded earth revelation to the public so the geologists save face. The present scientific method is flawed because the "allowed" hypotheses are severely limited. So if I wish to hypothesise something not permitted by the scientific priesthood, I'm branded a heretic at best and a laughing stock at worse. Losing credentials guarantees you "crack pot" status in the scientific and mainline news media. The result is no money for "unapproved" science so science must continue to depend on mavericks to progress.

Finally, the theory of en expanded earth can be proven but it will take money. If the money is found, then the earth's interior must be explored completely. Mathematical models of the earth's interior and exterior from start to finish must predict where the various elements are and in what concentrations. These programs must then confirm the predictions by guiding some individual, organisation, or government to a financially lucrative geological find. As soon as that occurs, the rest of the studies and additional funding will be forthcoming.

Anthony Gelbert
Vermont, USA