Our Moon is receding from us by about 3.8 cm a year.

The conventional explanation for this is that the energy required to produce the tides of the Earth’s oceans translates into a widening of the Moon’s orbit.

But if this is the only mechanism behind the receding moon, and this has gone on for millions of years, we have a problem related to the size of the dinosaurs.

Impossible dinosaurs

The enormous size of the dinosaurs is by many seen as proof that gravity is stronger today than when these creatures roamed the Earth. So, gravity must have increased over time, and the result of this should have been a closer rather than wider orbit of our Moon.

This dilemma was first pointed out to me by Peter Woodhead, who used it as supporting evidence for his hollow Earth model.

However, Peter’s calculations did not add up correctly. A big problem with his model was that it violated Newton’s shell theorem.

Evidence in need of an explanation

The evidence compiled by Peter was as follows:

1. The size of the dinosaurs indicate that gravity was at least half of what it is today
2. The rate of Earth’s expansion indicate a gas filled hollow at the center of our planet
3. The Moon is receding in its orbit

But these three premises don’t fit with conventional theory. In the framework of conventional theory, they cannot all be true. Because:

1. Stronger gravity over time would pull the moon closer to us.
2. A gas filled expansion of our planet would make surface gravity weaker rather than stronger.

So, our premises are either incorrect, or there’s some missing factor in conventional theory.

Electrostatic repulsion

After some consideration, I realized that if we include the fact that all astronomic bodies are charged, we get a repelling force in addition to the attracting force of gravity.

Electric repulsion and gravitational attraction

This introduces stability into the solar system.

Additionally, it gives us reasons to believe that planets are hollow, and it explains the receding Moon.

So, if an increase in gravity is outpaced by a corresponding increase in electrical repulsion, the net result would be a wider orbit of the Moon.

We would get both stronger gravity and a receding moon.

Mass condensation and capacitance

If we add Halton Arp’s mass condensation to this, we get further support for our position. Because this would make gravity stronger over time.

If we further assume that heavily charged matter exerts a stronger gravitational pull than neutral matter, we get an even better explanation. Because an expanding planet will increase its capacitance, especially if it’s hollow. The expanded planet can hold more charge than its unexpanded former self.

Gravity would increase due to more charge, and the moon would recede, also due to more charge.

Conclusion

We get an overall explanation that solves all the problems listed above.

So, it appears that Peter Woodhead was right about the expanding Earth, even if he was somewhat off with his explanation.