re: Impossible Dinosaurs

[Aardwolf]

Paladin17, your criticims seem sto be justifed ceteris paribus but your argument won´t work if Earth is gaining mass by an (yet unknown) process as assumed by a number of advocats of the growing Earth! If this process is faster/bigger than the expansion of our Earth then gravitation can become bigger inspite of an expanding Earth.

That is indisputable.
However, remember that the gravity of a sphere becomes weaker as an inverse square of its radius, but it increases only linearly with its mass. So if the radius gets 2 times bigger, the mass should rise 4 times just to keep the constant gravity on the surface. This isn't very good, I suppose. Such a colossal increase of mass would be pretty hard to explain, although, of course, it still is possible.
And the increase in mass makes the trouble with the length of a day even more dramatic. If we make the radius 2 times bigger and the mass 4 times bigger, the day should become 16 times longer to keep the angular momentum constant.

Using the law of conservation on orbital rotation periods is not valid because they are clearly not closed systems as I pointed out on another thread. If it was that easy, someone would have worked out why Venus's day increased 6.5 minutes in only 16 years.

[paladin17]

Using the law of conservation on orbital rotation periods is not valid because they are clearly not closed systems as I pointed out on another thread. If it was that easy, someone would have worked out why Venus's day increased 6.5 minutes in only 16 years.

So maybe Venus is expanding?

[MattEU]

Using the law of conservation on orbital rotation periods is not valid because they are clearly not closed systems as I pointed out on another thread. If it was that easy, someone would have worked out why Venus's day increased 6.5 minutes in only 16 years.

So maybe Venus is expanding?

Could a massive expanding Venus effect its orbit so much that it could change into its strange retrograde rotation?

[paladin17]

Using the law of conservation on orbital rotation periods is not valid because they are clearly not closed systems as I pointed out on another thread. If it was that easy, someone would have worked out why Venus's day increased 6.5 minutes in only 16 years.

So maybe Venus is expanding?

Could a massive expanding Venus effect its orbit so much that it could change into its strange retrograde rotation?

Technically when the radius is infinitely big, the rotation becomes infinitely small, but it cannot go into "negative" (change the direction). But I'm thinking of the other thing: actually the whole angular momentum is the parameter that should remain constant. And it is equal to the sum of orbital angular momentum (the movement along the orbit) and spin (rotation).
So rotation can be diminished and go into negatives if the orbital angular moment increases (due to the increase in mass, orbital velocity or distance to the Sun - or some other center of gravity). It gives some new possibilities, I guess.

[flyingcloud]

if Venus was created as a by product of charge equalization between two systems, would continual charge equalization cause rotation to slow and generate internal heat,
sort of like a ceiling fan being switched to reverse on the fly

[katesisco]

sorry, Woodhead does not claim Earth expansion due to mass, the opposite actually. What bothers me is this exponential increase.
His conclusions follow:


The expansion of our Earth and other planets and moons is caused by the heating of their initially frozen interiors and consequent gaseous expansion.



The 4.2 billion years of zero expansion is due to the core remaining frozen.



The ability of giant flora and fauna to exist was the low value of gravity at the surface of the Earth pre expansion



The Earth’s interior was, and is, being warmed from its original frozen state by a combination of means, at least 50% of which is derived from the nuclear decay of uranium and thorium



The mass of the Earth has not significantly increased in 4.5 billion years.



Earth's gravity at its surface is increasing exponentially.



The Earth's surface area is expanding exponentially.



Despite expansion, Earth's relation to our Sun and Moon have not been affected.



No effects have been observed that might be produced by any increase in mass.



We can in theory suggest that a great out-welling of water could explain the historical “great flood” as described in many cultures. (Which explains the creation of the deep oceans.)



There cannot be any polar openings as this would not allow any pressure build up within the Earth.



Extinctions are likely to have been due to increasing gravitational effects on plant and animal life.



Much of, if not all the heat required to fuel Earth's Expansion is provided by the nuclear decay of uranium and thorium. (I believe the findings of the attached report “nuclear decay” would provide all the heat required if applied to a smaller Earth)



The Cassini probe has identified water under the surface of Saturn's moons Titan and Enceladus. Jupiter's moon Europa has a subterranean ocean, as might Ganymede and Calisto. Neptune's moon Triton is also suspected to have water.



Obviously much more work needs to be done to resolve some of the outstanding questions. I believe the acceptance of an expanding gas-filled Earth will have a similar passage as the flat to spherical Earth had, obstructed by the scientific rather than religious dogma.

[katesisco]

Miles Mathis on Gauss:
http://milesmathis.com/gauss2.pdf
MM:
What else does it mean? It means that we have even more proof my nuclear theory is correct, since if
we have gravity at the quantum level—existing all along in Maxwell's equations—we have to take
another look at the strong force. Current theory has proceeded all along with the assumption that
gravity is absent or negligible at the quantum level, but it isn't. Even without my nuclear diagrams, it is
clear that all strong theory would have to be redone from the ground up. Fortunately, I have already
done most of the hard work there, too, and I have replaced the strong force with charge channeling.

[placedo]

Thank-you Kate for making clear what the claims were from part 1 of "Explaining the Expanding Earth". As you know there is now a part 2 and an updated article with supporting evidence.
After the release of part 1 I became aware of Newtons shell theorem, asking the question could it be wrong I found that not everyone accepts it. On another forum I found a guy with the avatar "geitkeisel" who stated thus.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbth ... mber=30725

I was inspired to create a spreadsheet for Earth's shell that used a limited number (16) rings, using simple maths to calculate the volume of each ring, giving it a nominal density 3 kg/l, then calculating the attraction from an object on the surface to each ring. having cancelled the horizontal element of the forces, the vertical portions were then added (the tricky bit), each subsequent "part" of the force pulled down the CMF in proportion to its magnitude and depth. Various parameters were substituted for a range of shell thickness's and Earth diameter. The results supported a variation in g of that now to 25% on the pre expansion Earth. The spreadsheet showed the CMF to be at 1,993 km which correlated with a drop in g of 0.7% as measured atop Mt. Nevado Chile.

Using Kepler's third law, using the ISS and substituting the accepted mass of Earth with a much smaller mass, (as calculated in part 1) centred at the CMF at 1,993 gave the same force on the ISS as found using accepted figures for Earth mass and radius.

Link to part 1 video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swCnPOi5qOU

Part 1 article

http://tinyurl.com/expearthpw

Part 2 video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iIWYYNkgJQ

Part 2 article

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms...

part 2 pdf

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Gas ... ations.pdf

[AndrewDJohnson]

Hi All,

Thanks to Peter for posting the links - this is just to correct 1 broken link:

Part 2 Article: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=409&Itemid=59 or http://tinyurl.com/expearthpw2

Comments and constructive feedback very welcome!

[Kent]

Well isn't it obvious that the dinosaurs and human giant present evidence that gravity was not always as we know it? Isn't it claimed that a dinosaur's flesh and bones as we know it could not have been able to stand erect in the gravity we have on earth today? Look at those ancient stone monuments. How did they get up there. There is a very large stone obelisk that has been carved in stone still lying down. It's on the web somewhere. Isn't it clear that those people didn't have the ability to erect it once they got It carved? So, it does compute that this item was carved at the end of a low gravity era. So they never was able to erect it because something caused the gravity to return. Like maybe Saturn moved from a close position to earth to farther away. This and giants and dinosaurs and a few other things seems to clearly fit into the ancient order of things?

[Jetson63]

It is an interesting idea and at least Peter Woodhead backs up his theory with maths and theory. People may not agree with them but then who is right when it comes to this?

Unfortunately, his theory contradicts the Gauss's law for gravity. And also the Newton't law (which is sort of the same thing, only expressed a bit differently).
Your site is pretty nice, hope to see it expanding.

Have you revisited this topic since learning the possibility of Jupiter, and every other body in the universe being hollow, and how gravity and the earth's mass would be calculated?

Paul