The evidence for our own planet being in a process of expansion is in my opinion overwhelming, and most people who have looked into the evidence for this with an open mind tend to come to the same conclusion.
Also, the evidence that surface gravity must have been much lower at the time of the dinosaurs is also overwhelming. Such huge animals could simply not exist in our current gravitational environment. The dinosaurs would collapse like beached whales if they were to be resurrected today.
So it appears that the effect of an expanding Earth has been that of an increase in surface gravity, and since standard Newtonian physics predict a lower surface gravity for an expanding planet with no added mass, most people have come to the conclusion that Earth grew through a process where matter has accumulated in our planet.
However, an increased mass would cause the Moon to fall towards Earth and Earth to fall towards the Sun, and this has not happened. Furthermore, Peter Woodhead has recently pointed out that surface gravity would only increase if the matter added was at least as massive as the original matter. In fact, the added matter has to be a good deal more massive than the initial matter in order to produce the 333% increase required to explain the dinosaurs.
A few hydrogen atoms will not do the trick. The acquired matter has to be something much more massive. It has to be iron or lead, or something of that nature. Even silica is too light.
It should therefore be clear to any reasonable person that the expanding Earthcannot be satisfactorily explained using standard Newtonian physics since this requires enormous amounts of massive matter to be accumulated inside our planet.
The evidence is in other words piling up in support of Peter Woodhead’s proposed mechanism which requires no added matter. And with the Electric Universe model supporting Mr. Woodhead’s position, we even have the formulas to describe the process mathematically.
Using the equations developed in my paper on the expanding Earth, surface gravity on the Moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury can all be explained without resorting to exotic density models. And it can even be argued that the chemical makeup of our planets, our moon and our sun are all very similar.
Gas planets are not a completely different kind of object from rock planets. Gas planets are rock planets with huge atmospheres, and they arise through the process of expansion described by Mr. Woodhead in his theory.
However, to demonstrate all of this, we will first have to quickly revisit the maths that I developed in my paper on the expanding Earth.
The key feature of the equations developed by me in my paper on the expanding Earth is that I calculate the center of gravity to be at the depth where there is equal mass on either side of it. This depth is never very far down relative to the total radius of a planet. At the most, it is a mere 20% down towards the geometrical center.
As a planet expands, the distance down to the center of gravity decreases, and since I treat gravity as a dipole, I use the inverse cube to calculate the effects of this on the surface.
The net effect is that surface gravity increases as a planet expands, and we get the somewhat counter intuitive result that a thinning crust results in a stronger surface gravity. However, once we realize that the thinning of the crust follows the inverse square law, while the effect of a center of gravity moving up towards the surface follows the inverse cube law, it is clear that the net effect has to be that of an increase in surface gravity.
The exact maths can be found in my paper on the expanding Earth, linked to at the end of this paper.
Using a non-Newtonian model for gravity does of course set off a lot of skepticism, and I have received several critical remarks. However, most of this criticisms has been directed towards the Electric Universe model itself, and for those who have a problem with the Electric Universe model, the natural place to go with their objections is to the Electric Universe community. Alternatively, they can read my paper on universal gravity, also linked to at the end of this paper.
The only criticism directed directly at my calculations has come from Stephen Hurrell, the author of the book "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth".
Stephen Hurrell pointed out that my figure, although closer to his 333% increase in surface gravity than the mere 50% or less predicted by added mass proponent, was nonetheless incorrect. I arrived at a 500% increase which Mr. Hurrell found insufficiently close to his estimated value for him to go along with the rather radical idea of abandoning Newton in favor of the Electric Universe model.
However, the figure of a 333% increase in surface gravity suggested by Mr. Hurrell can easily be arrived at without changing my formulas. All that is requires is the existence of a cavity inside our planet at the start of its expansion.
In my paper on the expanding Earth, I make the assumption that the Earth was solid all the way through before expansion started. But it is in many ways more plausible that there was a cavity at the center of our planet from the start. And if this cavity occupied about 25% of the total volume of our planet, the effect of the mass-less expansion proposed by Mr. Woodhead would be the 333% estimated by Mr. Hurrell. The calculation for this can be found in Appendix A.
The Density of Mars
According to standard Newtonian models, Mars is made up of material much less dense than Earth, and for anyone familiar with the "Red Planet", this seems preposterous. Mars is red due to rich iron deposits on its surface, and it seems ridiculous that Mars’ core should be somehow much less dense than that of our planet.
In fact, as Neal Adams pointed out recently in a discussion with Mr. Woodhead, Mars is in geological terms very much like what Earth must have been like at the start of its expansion. The only difference is that Earth had a thicker atmosphere and more water. If Mars was equipped with the same atmospheric conditions as Earth, dinosaurs would have had no trouble roaming its surface today.
However, to go through an expansion process from where Mars is today to where Earth is today, enormous amounts of massive matter will have to be added to Mars in order to produce the 333% increase in surface gravity that we have experienced on our planet. Unless we abandon Newton in favor of equations similar to those proposed by me, things will not add up.
Using my equations, it is easy to show that Mars is indeed very similar to where Earth was a few hundred million years ago. And for those interested, the calculations for this can be found in Appendix B.
Mars, it appears, is at the beginning of an expansion process. And geological evidence support this. The only tectonic rift on Mars is the Valles Marineres. It is as if Mars has just recently started expanding.
Being at the beginning of an expansion process, the crust of Mars is still quite thick, and as pointed out in the Maths section, a thick shell corresponds to a low surface gravity. Mars is in other words composed of materials very similar to that of our planet, and the difference in surface gravity has nothing to do with density.
Size and Rate of Expansion
So it appears that Mars and Earth are in fact as similar as they seem from observations. There is no mysterious difference in density. However, can giant gas planets like Jupiter also be said to be more similar to Earth than previously supposed?
Jupiter looks nothing like Earth, and conventional science has concluded from this that Jupiter is qualitatively something different from our planet. We have gas planets and we have rocky planets. These things are different, they say.
However, as Mr. Woodhead has pointed out in one of his papers, the amount of gas locked inside of a rocky planet is so huge that it would form an enormous atmosphere if it was to escape. And there is plenty of evidence that some of this gas, locked inside our planet, seeps out through vents such as volcanoes.
It does not, therefore, require a great leap of faith to conclude that gas planets are in fact rocky planets that have vented all their internal gases out into their atmospheres. Gas planets are what rock planets become after expansion has completed. And if this is the case, then Venus looks remarkably much like a planet that is about to make the transition from a rocky planet to a gas planet.
From surface gravity measurements, it is clear, based on my functions, that Venus has a relatively thin shell. And the calculations for this can be found in Appendix E.
It appears that Venus no longer has the required shell thickness to keep its internal gas from flowing out at such a rate that its atmosphere becomes unlivable. And with the knowledge that our planet is about identical to Venus when it comes to shell thickness and size, we can make the unsettling inference that our planet is approaching a time when it too will no longer be able to keep its atmosphere suitably thin.
Venus and Earth are fairly far advanced in the expansion process compared to Mars and Mercury. But Jupiter and the other gas giants have clearly gone through this process long ago, and we see from this that it appears that the rate of expansion is related to the size of the planet. Not only does expansion accelerate during the expansion process, as noted by Stephen Hurrell in his book, but planets that start out big, expand more quickly than planets that start out small.
Jupiter was no doubt an enormous planet even before it went from being a rocky planet to a gas giant. And the same can be said about the other gas giants. Venus will always remain much smaller than the gas giants, even after it has vented all its internal gases into its atmosphere. And the same goes for Earth.
Our moon and the smaller planets such as Mercury and Mars show little to no sign of tectonic activity. There are some cracks here and there, and a few volcanoes have been observed on Mars.
From the above we can conclude that the difference between the various planets of our solar system is much smaller than what is presumed according to standard theory, and we will now see that even the Sun may have far more in common with its surrounding planets than has been generally assumed.
In his book on cosmology, Goran Mitic points out that all visible evidence suggests that our sun is liquid and not a ball of gas, and Mr. Mitic suggests that this liquid is nothing more exotic than lava. Mr. Mitic draws this conclusion from the fact that the universe seems to be full of rocks of various types, especially around our sun. It is therefore natural to assume that the Sun too is composed of this rather abundant material.
This suggests that the entire solar system is created out of more or less identical matter, and if we take Donald Scott seriously in his assertion that all solar systems are created inside violent Z-Pinch’es of interstellar Birkeland currents, we must conclude that the entire solar system is in fact produced by matter that has been pulled together over a relatively short time period.
Therefore, we have good reasons to believe that everything in our solar system consists of more or less the same stuff, and the Sun is no different. It too has a rocky surface, all be it in liquid form.
However, being by far the biggest object in our solar system, and glowing hot, the sun must have lost its gas core almost immediately. All that is left is a boiling hot magma, most likely powered by the same Birkeland current that created our solar system in the first place. Our sun’s gas atmosphere has simply been blown away by solar winds.
Explaining surface gravity and changes to surface gravity by the use of standard Newtonian physics is very difficult, and leads invariably to the conclusion that all planets are very different in density and chemical composition.
However, using the equations developed in my paper on the expanding Earth,surface gravity on the Moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury can all be explained without resorting to exotic density models. And from this it follows that the chemical makeup of our planets, our moon and even our sun are all very similar.
Mars is dry and has a very thin atmosphere, but apart from that Mars is very similar to Earth as it was at the early stages of its expansion. And Mars is no less dense than Earth. If anything, the high iron content of Mars’ surface indicates that Mars is more dense than our planet, not less dense.
Should Mars expand to the size of Earth, Mars’ surface gravity would become pretty much identical to what we experience here on Earth today.
Venus on the other hand is ahead of Earth in its evolution, and can be seen as an example of what Earth will be like in a distant future. Expansion on Venus is reaching its end and venting of its internal gas core is now such that its atmosphere will grow until it finally becomes a gas planet.
The gas giants in our solar system have all once been rocky planets, and they all possess the remnants of this rocky shell at their core. Being far more massive than the rocky planets in our solar system, they went through the expansion process at a faster pace. And although Venus will one day become a gas planet, it will never become as big as the gas giants.
Mercury may be too small to ever complete an expansion process, and our moon is highly unlikely to expand much as it does not possess the required mass to do so.
Our sun too once had a gas core, but the liquid nature of its shell would have let the gas escape almost immediately, and with the sun producing strong solar winds, its entire gas core has been dissipated into space from the start.
Stephen Hurrell’s Earth
Pre expansion estimates:
Radius of cavity = 2500 km
Depth of shell = 1200 km
C of G = 300 km
Current expansion estimates:
Radius of cavity = 6070 km
Depth of shell = 300 km
C of G = 130 km
Relative values for gravity then compared to now:
Strength of C of G: Spre/Snow = 1200/300 = 4
Surface gravity: Fpre/Fnow = (4/300^3)/(1/130^3) = 0.33
Comparing Mars to Earth
Current expansion Mars has radius of 3397 km (using 3400):
Radius of cavity = 2500 km
Depth of shell = 900 km
C of G = 250 km
Comparing current expansion Mars to current expansion Earth:
Relative strength of C of G = 900/300 = 3
Relative gravity = (3/250^3)/(1/130^3) = 0.42 ; Which is a close fit with the measured 0.38
Comparing Moon to Earth
Current expansion Moon has radius of 1737.4 km (using 1700):
Radius of cavity = 800 km
Depth of shell = 900 km
C of G = 320 km
Comparing current expansion Moon to current expansion Earth:
Relative strength of C of G = 900/300 = 3
Relative gravity = (3/330^3)/(1/130^3) = 0.18 ; Which is a close fit with the measured 0.17
Comparing Mercury to Earth
Current expansion Mercury has radius of 2440 km (using 2400):
Radius of cavity = 1800 km
Depth of shell = 600 km
C of G = 260 km
Comparing current expansion Mercury to current expansion Earth:
Relative strength of C of G = 600/300 = 2
Relative gravity = (2/230^3)/(1/130^3) = 0.36 ; Which is a close fit with the measured 0.38
Comparing Venus to Earth
Current expansion Venus has radius of 6052 km (using 6000):
Radius of cavity = 5700 km
Depth of shell = 300 km
C of G = 130 km
Comparing current expansion venus to current expansion Earth:
Relative strength of C of G = 300/300 = 1
Relative gravity = (1/130^3)/(1/130^3) = 1 ; Which is a close fit with the measured 0.90