Introduction The legend of Atlantis is an enduring myth that may have more truth to it than…
Earth Expansion and Gravity
Many who believe that Earth is an expanding planet believe that this on its own would have led to stronger surface gravity, and that this in turn explains the impossibly large size of the dinosaurs. However, expansion without an increase in dense matter, would lead to less surface gravity, not more. That’s the exact opposite of what is required to explain the dinosaurs.
Density of added matter
The matter supplied to feed the expansion would have to be just as dense as the rest of our planet in order to result in a one to one increase in gravity relative to Earth’s diameter. This was pointed out by Peter Woodhead in a short paper he wrote back in 2015.
If the added matter was anything less dense than rock and iron, surface gravity would grow very little with Earth’s expansion. If the added matter was something as light as hydrogen, surface gravity would go down rather than up.
For surface gravity to have grown as much as is required in order to explain such impossibilities as the Quetzalcoatlus, Earth must have accumulated a very large amount of extremely dense matter.
Calculations
Calculations put forward by Stephen Hurrell in his work on dinosaurs and the expanding Earth indicate that a one to one relationship between Earth’s diameter and surface gravity is on the low end of what is required.
Certainly, in the case of the Quetzalcoatlus, gravity must have been a lot less than half of what it is today. Yet, the flying giant existed in times when Earth was already expanding, and therefore more than half the diameter that it has today.
Expansion from within
Making this even more problematic is the fact that the expansion of our planet is coming from within. It is not due to space dust accumulating on Earth’s surface, because such an accumulation would not produce the sort of rifting and uplifting that we observe. Yet, there is no known mechanism in which a planet can spontaneously start producing extremely dense matter below its surface.
Earth’s expansion seen from the south pole, with oceans as rift zones
However, there is a mechanism proposed by Halton Arp in which existing matter becomes more massive over time. In his work on quasars, Halton Arp noted a phenomenon in which inertial mass appeared to be linked to the age of matter. Young matter is less massive than old matter.
He termed this the intrinsic red-shift, and he proposed that this was due to a process in which radiation condenses onto matter as mass.
Overlooked fact
This brings us to an often overlooked fact. Dinosaurs were not only too big for their weight, they were also too big for their own inertia. Their long necks would have been impossible to control due to inertia. The Quetzalcoatlus would have snapped its neck as it tried to catch prey with the tip of its enormous beak.
A further advantage of Halton Arp’s mass condensation is that it suggests an increase in mass of both our planet and its inhabitants on its surface. Since the force of gravity is calculated by multiplying these two masses, we no longer need as much added matter as we would have required if the change in gravity was due to a change only related to our planet.
Forces are calculated by multiplication of the elements involved
For gravity to have increased by 4 times, we would need Earth’s mass to have increased 4 times if Earth was the only contributor to the change. However, if both Earth and its inhabitants were to increase their mass, it is sufficient for each to increase in mass by 2 times. Earth no longer needs to quadruple its mass.
Source of Earth’s expansion
Halton Arp’s mass condensation solves the problems of both gravity and inertia related to dinosaurs. However, there’s nothing in Halton Arp’s theory that requires Earth to expand. Mass condensation does not make atoms bigger, only heavier.
This means that the relationship between Earth’s expansion and Earth’s increased gravity is not as direct as it appears.
In my book, I suggest that expansion is due to chemical processes in the crust of our planet and also radioactivity.
Whenever an atom decays through radioactivity, we end up with an extra atom or two. Where there was one atom, there are suddenly two, or more. So, radioactivity increases the volume of matter inside our planet.
Expansion alone reduces surface gravity
However, this raises another problem. The expansion due to chemical processes and/or radioactivity reduces surface gravity, and it’s doubtful that mass condensation is happening at a sufficiently rapid rate to outpace the drop in surface gravity due to expansion.
I have therefore come up with another suggestion related to gravity. I’ve proposed that gravity of charged matter is greater than gravity of neutral matter.
This would mean that the capacitance of our planet must be taken into account when considering the overall effect of expansion on gravity.
Expansion increases capacitance
Capacitance is related to size. An expanding planet is therefore increasing its capacitance. If there is a hollow at the core of our planet, as some believe, the capacitance will increase even more.
If gravity is in part related to capacitance, surface gravity would decrease less from expansion than current theory would have. It might even increase without any added matter or mass condensation.
It appears then that an explanation that incorporates both capacitance and mass condensation is required, because the changes in surface gravity have been too large for a single mechanism to explain it all.
Our Moon’s orbit
Gravity may be as much as 4 times greater today than it was back in the time of the Quetzalcoatlus. It may be 5 times more than it was in the time of the Meganeura. If this was all due to Earth’s gravity alone, our Moon’s orbit would’ve become narrower over time. However, our Moon isn’t coming closer to us. It’s receding. There must therefore be some counter-mechanism preventing our Moon from narrowing its orbit.
Mass condensation would go a long way in solving this puzzle because the increase in gravitational strength would be matched by an increase in inertia. If gravity is 4 times stronger now than in the past, and this is due entirely to mass condensation, inertia is 2 times stronger.
If capacitance is a factor as well we get an even better explanation because greater charge equates to stronger electrostatic repulsion.
Conclusion
Surface gravity appears to be governed by more than one factor. Mass condensation is one such factor, and capacitance may be another. Accumulation of dust, and absorption of cosmic radiation are also part of the picture, but probably not the major contributors.
Related Posts
This Post Has 6 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I followed your comment in Electric Universe theory and found your article here to comment.
You have some interesting ideas. The way I understand it, is that the earths is a hollow shells sphere (probably) with a double layer in the middle of the shell so that the surface of the earth is positive charge and the inside of the shell is negative. This creates an electric dipole form of gravity that pulls all matter towards the double layer. Since the earths shell and surface are determined by the double layer capacitance then the shell can expand and get thinner if a there is more capacitance energy stored in it. Or the shell can shrink if you took out energy from the earth shell capacitor. The reason the shell of earth grows or shrinks is because the shell size is also determined by the electric magnetic interference patterns from the earth which are commonly called “Magnetic field lines” a hollow earth size isn’t based on it’s mass, but is instead based on the size of the double layer sphere sphere. So to calculate how big the earth diameter was in the past and how thin the shell of the hollow earth was, then you need to know The capacitance of the earth shell and the amount of charge in the capacitor? So the size of the earth would change if it got struck by a cosmic lightning bolt maybe? Imagine of a lot of electrons got suddenly added to the earth from another planet or the sun? I guess in this analogy The earth is kind of like ball lightning except instead of a double layer plasma sphere shell like we have in ball lightning, the earth has double layer earth shell.
Does that make sense? Any ideas or thoughts?
P.s. if you’re interested in an economic solution to the survival and disaster planning for existential threats to humanity such as the earth changing size and also a solution to poverty and politics, then Google “The hOEP Project”. I’m Steve Whetstone, the Founder of the project .
The capacitor model of gravity is certainly very compelling. It explains very well the fluctuations in measured gravity. It can also explain the large increase in surface gravity that seems to have accompanied the expansion of our planet.
However, capacitance does not explain the peculiar shape of dinosaurs. It can only explain their size. To explain their shape, we need their inertia to have been less. This is why I’ve included Halton Arp’s intrinsic red shift and mass condensation in my theory.
I have therefore concluded that changes in surface gravity are due to two processes. We have Halton Arp’s mass condensation, which results directly in increased weight and indirectly in expansion through radioactivity. Then there is charge due to capacitance which can fluctuate, causing our planet to expand when charged and shrink when discharged, but with an overall tendency towards expansion due to internal pressures.
Great stuff.
You need to check out the hollow asteroid Bennu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNuM7SrcRqE
This little asteroid of rubble maybe the rosetta stone of earth’s geology, giving tantalising evidence of hollow earth and electromagnetic repulsion from the centre.
For me, expanding earth/hollow earth theory breaks down with gravity only based analysis – I.e. why does the roof inside the hollow just not collapse? It’s been hard to argue for hollow earth in a gravity only framework
For hollow/expanding earth to ever gain credibility and not be laughed at, it needs a credible force to counteract in the centre to push out. Centrifugal surely only causes oblateness, not a hollow as the ‘roof’ at the poles must surely collapse in a gravity model. EU have suggested dipolar gravity as the opposing force but this seems too big a stretch for me. A bit like using dark matter to plug holes in galaxy rotation equations.
And now we have a potential electromagnetic answer. Can double layers within the planet/asteroid provide the repulsive force to counteract the weak gravity at the centre?
The more charge a planet has, the greater the repulsion and faster expansion and hollow.
Bennu shows the way….
Thanks for your very informative comment and link. As is clear from the video, there are many issues still unresolved when it comes to gravity. My theory suggests that highly charged objects in the size range from asteroids to stars will have measurably stronger gravity than uncharged counterparts of the same size. The fact that Bennu has less gravity than was expected from it size can therefore in part be explained by the fact that it is far less charged than Earth. Its lack of charge relative to Earth may therefore be sufficient explanation for its low gravity. However, the asteroid’s odd shape does suggest that there’s something more going on. It may indeed be hollow, which is exactly what we’d expect in light of EU theory.
I have a couple of comments. First of all, I agree with the idea of an expanding Earth.
But this idea that the mass of the planets as well as the mass of the animals would have increased over time? That is just plain ridiculous… animals would not gain mass. Matter may gain mass naturally (about zero over your lifetime), but each new creature would develop according to its DNA, not any type of accumulated mass.
Second, you can easily see that mass must have increased along with the size (without the other strange ideas) of the planet, because the age of the oceans shows the size of the planet previously along with how the mass must have changed, and it is proportional. As in the density hasn’t changed, so the Earth must be converting something into matter, and by that means growing larger (and cracking, and cracks being filled in, etc.)
There may be different ideas about what may be entering the Earth to be converted into ponderable matter. Maybe charged particles from the sun? – if galaxies are creating matter also, that is probably not it.
Personally, I like the idea that gravity is caused by the flow of the aether toward and into the Earth (and other bodies), which solves two problems. There has been debate over aether going back over the years. It is now taboo, but so is any good theory these days.
When I say that animals have increased in inertia over time, I do of course mean that the material that they are made up of has increased in inertia. Animals have always been made up of carbon, calcium and water. That hasn’t changed. What has changed is the size of the protons that make up these materials. They have become heavier through mass condensation.
I’m familiar with the idea that Earth is converting something into matter, but that something is never specified, and it has to be converted into matter that is on average heavier than what Earth is made up of in order for gravity to increase at Earth’s surface. Without any explanation for what the unspecified something may be or how it can be converted into something extremely dense, we need to be open for alternatives, such as the idea that capacitance and charge may cause gravity to increase.
The main point of this article has been to highlight the many peculiarities related to Earth’s history and the difficulty in finding an explanation that sorts out all of them. When it comes to animal life, we have giant insects coming before the dinosaurs. We have very large mammals appearing shortly after the dinosaurs, and the maximum size of land animals is on a downward trend. An increase in gravity explains this. However, the peculiar form of ancient animals suggest that inertia has also changed. I think it’s safe to say that the material we’re made of today has more inertia than the same material had millions of years ago.