reply to post by robwerden
A chicken hatched on the moon would probably be taller than on hatched on earth.
No... the chicken would be about the same size. Growth isn't limited by gravity, it's limited by growth hormones such as Somatotrophin and the
structure of the body. For example, we have many instances of disorders of the petuitary gland causing humans to grow to much larger sizes - but this
comes at the cost of serious problems with the circulatory system, the back, etc. These often lead to early death. The human frame just isn't
designed to handle that much weight.
A chicken hatched on the moon may be slightly larger than Earth hatched cousins on average - but this would simply be due to less compression on
joints compacting the cartilage and ligaments.
As for the Earth growing - yes, it is. The Earth still accretes mass from the universe - be it dust, meteorites, or gaseous vapors. We also loose mass
from the upper atmosphere and via radioactive decay. Plus we like to occasionally shoot off little bits of Earth's matter into space and other
planets. I dunno if there are any reliable estimates over whether or not this constitutes a net gain or loss.
Insofar as the OP claim, it doesn't matter whether or not he's an "official" scientist (whatever that would mean). The only thing that matters is
the validity of his research. If there's really anything to it, he should seek publication - and if what he claims is an accurate description of
reality, he will be vindicated. Those who claim that mainstream science will likely reject the idea are correct... this is part of the trial by fire
by which science tests and stresses hypothesis for accuracy so that they can be modified and corrected of errors to best fit the evidence we have
available. If the theory cannot survive the corrections and does not accurately describe reality, then it's bunk - at least, until newly discovered
evidence dictates a re-examination.
So.... yeah. Show me something peer reviewed.
-------
Edit: Never mind. Just out of curiosity, I looked at the sites. This guy is a moron.
The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to
this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained, why this assembly of material mysteriously ended at exactly this time, and
didn’t continue to provide more material is a brutally illogical contradiction.
The earth (and other planets) is thought to have been accreted from a proto-planetary disk. That disk is no longer around, because most of the matter
which made it has already been formed into planets. So it makes perfect sense why the Earth would stop growing substantially, as the free matter in
the disk was consumed. The Earth is actually likely an amalgamation of two planets, as this planet was struck by a smaller planet (Theia) early in
it's life, which is what formed our Moon. Fortunately, the Solar System has calmed substantially since it's formation.
Also, we have observed protoplanetary disks in other star systems.
link
Another note: His theory would have serious problems contending with speciation ranges if there were no coastal barriers to migration. I don't feel
like doing the maths right now, but a fairly easy way to validify his theory or not would be to measure the rate of lunar recession.
[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]
