The Inflating Earth: 4 – Gravity

Stephen Hurrell - Earth's Gravity Curve

Stephen Hurrell is a truly remarkable scientist whose application of the scientific method has enabled him to unravel many of the mysteries that surround the history of the Earth.

One of the most enduring mysteries about the dinosaurs is their massive size, with the largest dinosaurs weighing several times the mass of the largest Elephant.

It wasn’t just dinosaurs that were massive on the ancient Earth, there were giant crocodiles, insects and plants that were all much larger than we would expect.

In this world of giants all life appears shifted towards a larger size.

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth
Stephen Hurrell
http://www.dinox.org/

Stephen Hurrell, following in the footsteps of Galileo Galilei, understands that size matters because “a large structure proportioned in exactly the same way as a smaller one must necessarily be weaker known as the square-cube law”.

Galileo Galilei - 1638 - Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences
Galileo Galilei – 1638
Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/753/Galileo_0416_EBk_v6.0.pdf

The sciences named in the title are the strength of materials and the motion of objects. Galileo worked on an additional section on the force of percussion, but was not able to complete it to his own satisfaction.

The discussion begins with a demonstration of the reasons that a large structure proportioned in exactly the same way as a smaller one must necessarily be weaker known as the square-cube law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_New_Sciences

Stephen Hurrell, following in the footsteps of Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, understands that gravity is a limiting factor for the size of life.

On Growth and Form - 1917 - D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson

Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson – 1917 – On Growth and Form
http://archive.org/details/ongrowthform00thom

The central theme of On Growth and Form is that biologists of its author’s day overemphasized evolution as the fundamental determinant of the form and structure of living organisms, and underemphasized the roles of physical laws and mechanics.

He advocated structuralism as an alternative to survival of the fittest in governing the form of species.

On the concept of allometry, the study of the relationship of body size and shape, Thompson wrote:

“An organism is so complex a thing, and growth so complex a phenomenon, that for growth to be so uniform and constant in all the parts as to keep the whole shape unchanged would indeed be an unlikely and an unusual circumstance. Rates vary, proportions change, and the whole configuration alters accordingly.”

Thompson pointed out example after example of correlations between biological forms and mechanical phenomena. He showed the similarity in the forms of jellyfish and the forms of drops of liquid falling into viscous fluid, and between the internal supporting structures in the hollow bones of birds and well-known engineering truss designs.

His observations of phyllotaxis (numerical relationships between spiral structures in plants) and the Fibonacci sequence has become a textbook staple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson

Stephen Hurrell initially noted that large dinosaurs are dynamic similarity to smaller animals that are alive today. From this initial observational evidence his researches progressed through leg bone strength, ligament strength, and blood pressure so that he could trace the history of Earth’s Gravity.

Dynamic Similarity
Palaeontologists have noted that large dinosaurs appear to be dynamically similar to smaller animals alive today (Alexander, 1983, 1989; Bakker, 1986).

The gravity at the time of ancient life can be estimated from the relative scale of dynamically similar ancient and modern life.

In practice, the dynamic similarity of the largest life is the most easy to compare since this life defines the upper size limit for a particular form of life in a defined gravity.

Leg Bone Strength
The strength of leg bones necessary to support the mass of today’s life has been measured by a number of researchers (Anderson et al, 1985). Researchers have also estimated the body mass of dinosaurs based on the volume of these dinosaurs (Colbert, 1962).

Since leg bone strength will be weaker in a reduced gravity, the gravity at the time of ancient life can be estimated from fossil leg bones.

In general, the body mass estimates based on volume methods greatly exceed those based on leg bone strength. This variation between the body mass estimates and the leg bone strength can be used to roughly calculate ancient gravity when the ancient life was alive.

Ligament Strength
Ligaments are not fossilised but the size and shape of dinosaurs’ bones have been used to estimate the strength of the neck ligaments of Diplodocus (Alexander, 1989).

The gravity at the time of ancient life can be estimated from the strength of neck ligaments. The variation between the actual strength of the ligament and the required strength of the ligament can be used to estimate the relative scale of life and hence roughly calculate gravity when the ancient life was alive.

Blood Pressure
The relative scale of ancient life can be estimated from the blood pressure of ancient life.
Blood pressure is proportional to blood mass, gravity and height so it is possible to calculate blood pressure in ancient life and compare this with the blood pressure of modern life.

Stephen Hurrell - Variation of Earth’s gravity over hundreds of millions of years based on various

Ancient Life’s Gravity and its Implications for the Expanding Earth
Stephen Hurrell

Interdisciplinary Workshop on THE EARTH EXPANSION EVIDENCE:
A Challenge for Geology, Geophysics and Astronomy
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/Extended%20Abstracts%20Book.pdf

Understandably, Stephen Hurrell has followed the mainstream Newtonian concept that gravity is associated with Mass. This line of theory leads Stephen Hurrell [correctly] to the conclusion that the Earth has been expanding but for the wrong reason: Increasing Mass.

Earth's Changing Gravity

Earth's Changing Radius

Ancient Life’s Gravity and its Implications for the Expanding Earth
Stephen Hurrell
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/pdf%20presentations/07-October-2011/HURRELL%20Presentation.pdf

There is no evidence to support the required level of “increasing mass” for Newtonian gravity.

However, Stephen Hurrell has very clearly presented the observational evidence that surface Gravity is determined by Radius – not mass.

Gravity to Radius for Known Celestial Bodies

Ancient Life’s Gravity and its Implications for the Expanding Earth
Stephen Hurrell
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/pdf%20presentations/07-October-2011/HURRELL%20Presentation.pdf

Rocky Planets - Gravity versus Radius

Overall, this “real world” observed relationship provides a verifiable [and predictive] formula that underlines the fact that Newtonian heuristics [based upon the calculation an immeasurable mass] are neither meaningful nor scientific.

Newtonian Reality Check
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/newtonian-reality-check/

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Books, Catastrophism, Earth, Geology, Gravity, Inflating Earth, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Inflating Earth: 4 – Gravity

  1. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is expanding! Einstein is wrong, the Big Bang is wrong. So much to do! http://www.einsteinwrong.com

  2. Pingback: The Drake Passage Impact Event | MalagaBay

  3. Stephen Kovaka says:

    It became clear to me after much study that the biggest perceived problem with the expanding earth hypothesis concerns the expected gravitational changes. If we postulate that the expansion occurred by a process of decompression and outgassing, i.e. negligible change in mass, then the common understanding leads to the conclusion that the previously smaller, denser earth would have had a stronger surface gravity (the surface being closer to the center of mass). Yet the size of the ancient fauna seems to testify against this conclusion. But now, if I understand correctly, it is proposed that a smaller earth of the same mass would have a weaker surface gravity? If true, that is a game changer for the EE hypothesis.

    Following up on the gravity angle though, your foundational post, “Philosophy and Proposition” is puzzling to me. You wrote:

    Proposition

    1) The Universe is mechanical – there are no mysterious “forces at a distance”.

    Plasma provides charged particles and double-layer boundaries.
    Electro-magnetism causes charge particles to spin.
    Spinning charged particles entrain neutral particles.
    Spinning particles generate vortices within double-layer boundaries
    Vortices generate centripetal forces [commonly called gravity].
    Centripetal force results in density separation.
    Centripetal force accretes central spherical objects..

    Where is this proposition elucidated a little more fully? Specifically, what is the best evidence that a smaller earth of the same mass as today would have weaker gravity at the surface, contrary to Newton? (I will also investigate the Hurrell website for further clues.)

  4. malagabay says:

    Where is this proposition elucidated a little more fully?
    That is “a work in progress”… and my progress is documented on this site…
    Reworking “from the ground up” is not a “five minute job”… its a long haul…
    The following links list most of the “gravity” and “tides” related postings:
    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/category/gravity/
    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/category/tides/

  5. Stephen Kovaka says:

    Certainly true! Especially when we do not rush to judgment and the enshrinement of a final answer, but instead take time to become familiar with all the neglected evidence, even when confusing and seemingly contradictory..

  6. Gedis says:

    yes but theory is wrong with mass, it suppose to be opposite- black hole is great example, and what explains dinosaurs is what there was much less water on earth before due to most of hydrogen wasn’t released from the core, there still was enough to make most of the planet one big swamp, and in a water is much easier for big weight. Also loosing hydrogen from the core explains why it expands

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s