Skip to toolbar

Flora/Fauna Scale Adjustment

  • Flora/Fauna Scale Adjustment

     Paul updated 2 weeks, 3 days ago 1 Member · 1 Post
  • Paul

    Member
    October 4, 2020 at 8:14 pm

    Firstly, its exciting to be the first poster in this forum, and I look forward to keeping up on discussions about the Expanding Earth Theory.

    I’m fascinated by the concept and its gravity implications, and particularly how its the most intuitive model to explain how flora and Fauna seem to have extinct larger versions of themselves in the distant past. However, the expansion seems to be measured in enormous stretches of time, where just prior to the younger Dryas 12,000 years ago, there are hundreds of examples of huge scale animals that seem to have survived well into what I have to imagine are times far past any meaningful gravitational change, according to the slow progress of that gravitational effect.

    So when I consider that, I’m forced to consider two distinctly different interpretations, if I’m to accept the expanding earth model:

    1. That carbon dating is an ineffective means of measuring the dates of organic matter, perhaps because there are electrical events that occur on earth, that somehow influence the decay speeds of carbon isotopes. So its therefore possible that the history of Earth is actually much shorter than we have concluded based on Carbon dating, and the changing gravity of an expanding earth has happened far more recently that we presently assume based on this flawed dating method.

    2. That species size is based on gravity, but the Darwinian adjustment to higher gravity in an Expanding Earth happens extremely slowly, far more slowly than the rate of change of gravity, and large species can continue to survive as sub optimally larger scales then would be ideal for their contemporary gravity. In other words, gravity has increased over massive lengths of time, but species remain the same scale as long as there are stretches of time where they remain safe and isolated from cataclysms that might devastate their numbers.

    It seems logically that number 1 would provide the most likely reasonable explanation, while sadly, requires a large leap to accept. Number 2 might still apply, but to stretch that affect over hundreds of millions of years seems like a much larger leap.

    How would any of you see this problem? Is it just pure coincidence that only recently during the younger dryas, we’ve experienced a considerable expansion as one massive burst, and Earth Expansion still takes hundreds of millions of years, but happens erratically and randomly over huge stretches of time with zero change, and in degrees that can be from unnoticeable to massive leaps?

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now