Earth Expansion and Gravity

A common idea among those who believe that Earth is an expanding planet is that the expansion explains the impossibly large size of the dinosaurs. However, expansion in itself, without an enormous increase in dense matter, would lead to less surface gravity, not more.

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 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 of what it is today.

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.

Of particular interest to the problem of dinosaurs and their sizes is that this solution gives an answer to an often ignored 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 hunt down prey with the tip of its enormously long 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 mass to Earth as we would have required if the change in gravity was due to a change in Earth alone.

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 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.

Halton Arp's mass condensation solves the problems of both gravity and inertia related to dinosaurs.

However, there is 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 far less direct than most Earth expansion proponents intuitively believe.

In my book, I suggest that expansion is due to radioactivity that happens to be a bi-product of mass condensation.

Radioactivity increases the volume of matter inside our planet. Whenever an atom decays through radioactivity, we end up with an extra atom or two. Where there was once one atom, there are suddenly two, or more.

However, this raises another problem. The expansion due to radioactivity reduces surface gravity, and it is somewhat doubtful that mass condensation is happening at a sufficiently rapid rate to outpace the expansion to the extent required in order to fully explain the dinosaurs.

I have therefore come up with another suggestion related to gravity. I've proposed that gravity of highly 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.

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 all the more.

Putting all these pieces together, we get a mosaic of interrelated mechanisms that together explain why our planet is expanding and how gravity at our planet's surface has grown as much as it has, despite relatively little radiation and mass accumulation.

Each factor on their own would not be sufficient to explain the expansion and increase in gravity. However, when put together, there is good reasons to believe that gravity has increased by a very large percentage, and that inertia has had a large increase too.

Gravity may be as much as 4 times greater today than it was back in the time of Quetzalcoatlus. It may be 5 times more than it was in the time of the Meganeura, long before our planet started to expand. Inertia may likewise be somewhere between 2 times and 3 times greater today than in the past.