by Peter Woodhead
It has been stated, notably, by Dr James Maxlow, Neal Adams, Stephen Hurrell and others that the increase in Earth’s surface gravity since the time of the dinosaurs is due to additional mass being added to a “growing” planet.
Anyone familiar with my theory will know that I do not accept the added mass theory of Earth expansion, or the existence of an iron core, the added mass theory also relies on exotic theories for mass production. For the purpose of this illustration I will set aside my beliefs and do the calculations as if the mechanism for adding mass to the Earth was true.
Previous calculations by myself and others, credited the added mass believers with a reduction in surface gravity on a reduced size planet (59% of today’s radius) of 59%. When beginning on my journey of discovery I immediately rejected this as it was nowhere near the 25% reduction (at least) required for dinosaurs and in particular pterosaurs to exist.
Recently James Maxlow was kind enough to send me a pdf copy of his latest book “On the Origin of Continents and Oceans” – a formidable Tome of information on Earth’s geological history. While studying his section on a possible mechanism for earth expansion I came upon a graphic which showed Earth expansion based on adding mass to the mantle, the same place Neal Adams has previously stated our “growing” Earth absorbs new matter.
Both James Maxlow and Neal Adams state that this “added” mass is formed/acquired/absorbed into Earth’s mantle, that the added mass would automatically lead to an increase in surface gravity seems at first glance obvious, however like so many “obvious” things sometimes they need to be tested.
The graphic that caught my attention showed no change in the size of Earth’s core, which led me to do the following simple calculations, the conclusion that the adding of mass would not increase surface gravity by any amount, rather, if anything bring about a reduction in the value for surface gravity!
Using only accepted values for densities of mantle and core, and using Newtons formula F=G*m1*m2/r^2 values all readily available on the www, we will show this assumption to be false.
Using the accepted mass of the Earth to be 5.927*10^24 kg (we will use 6*10^24 kg for simplicity) just 1% of this is crust so we will ignore that in our calculations.
It is accepted that the core (inner and outer) account for 1/3 of this mass and the mantle 2/3. So today the mantle accounts for 2/3 of Earth’s mass or 4*10^24 kg
Using 4/3 pi r^3 (4.1888*6378^3) we have a volume for Earth now of 1,087,000,000,000 km^3 subtracting the volume of the core we get 1,087,000,000,000 km^3 minus 177,000,000,000 km^3 = 909,000,000,000 km^3
For a pre expansion planet we get (4.1888*3,760^3) which gives 241,000,000,000 km^3, again subtracting the core we get a net value for the pre-expansion core 241,000,000,000 km^3 minus 177,000,000,000 km^3 = 64,000,000,000 km^3 which is just 7% of the mass of the mantle today.
7% of 4*10^24 is roughly 3*10^23 adding this to the accepted mass of the core we get
using Newton we get, (to simplify we will say G=1 and m1=1)
doing the same for today’s figures we get
dividing both results by 10^17 we get the ratio of surface gravity now 1.5 to 1.6 pre expansion, within the scope of this calculation equal.
Using the added mass theory of Earth expansion there would be no net gain in surface gravity! If anything, there would be a net drop. (Some numbers have been simplified, but nothing that would introduce a discrepancy of more than 1-2%) The added mass theory of Earth expansion, were it true, cannot explain any increase in surface gravity – it certainly does not account for a reduction capable of allowing mega flora and fauna to exist 200MYA. As a theory, added mass has been shown to have no merit, holds no appeal to the general public or scientific community and should be discarded. We are left with the need for a mechanism for Earth expansion that does explain the increase in surface gravity; this can be found in A Mechanism for Earth Expansion andGas-Powered Planetary Expansion – Evidence And Calculations
Please note if included, G at 6.67^-11 and converting km to metres gives surface g now of 10m/s/s