Expanding Earth - A Theory

[zorgon]

Expanding Earth - A Theory

Okay before I start, I am going to put aside one thing, until the end. That one thing is WHERE does the new or extra matter come from? That one is the key to whether or not the theory is sound and it will take the most work

So here is the basic theory. This was the first video on the idea... and there are a few others. So this thread is a collection of all the pieces and will build the puzzle as we go.

Speaking of puzzle... see how it all fits together?

Yes this is all pure speculation at this point but there are some very interesting pieces of the puzzle to look at

[zorgon]

So Some Points to look at:

1) The current cracks opening around the world in Africa and New Zealand

2) New islands forming in the Pacific and Hawaii boiling over

It appears these event happen in spurts  Long periods of relative inactivity, then sudden surges of planet building events.

3)  If Continental drift is true, then they should be moving closer together on the other side as they separate on the one side

4) As seen in the video when you shrink the earth the pieces fit together perfectly... We know that there was once only one continent, we call Pangaea . The expanding earth theory works better than the drift theory IMP

5) Methane Gas.  Recently in the last few years we have seen the Earth belching a LOT of methane gas.  No not from human activities, and not cow farts I am talking from withing the earth itself.  We have set standards for what we call 'normal' gas pressure... but lately there have been many cases of extra ordinary releases of gas.

5a)  Bird and Fish dieoffs around the world... these can all be attributed to sudden releases of methane clouds. The one in Redondo Beach associated with the Methane mud volcanoes is a good example. Already have a lot of these stories documented on Livingmoon

5b)  Hugh amounts of methane released in the Arctic attributed to melting ice taking the pressure (weight) off the land

5c) The giant blow holes in Siberia recently caused by huge methane burst strong enough to make blow holes in solid rock

5d) The Gulf Oil disaster..  where methane pressure 40 times higher than 'normal' certainly contributed if not caused that blow out and certainly made it very difficult to close the hole

6)  This one is a little on the Wild Side    The Earth is HOLLOW and Dinosaurs still live in the Hollow Earth and Dino Farts are causing the methane expansion (This is the Al Gore hypothesis version )

7) Gravity: IF the earth was smaller in the past that would mean less mass and therefore less gravity. That would allow the Dinosaurs to move around easier ( a fact that has stumped many scientists as they figure in today's gravity they couldn't move around) and make Pyramid building easier.

[zorgon]

Some comments from various YT presentations on this (Most of the presentations are just talking heads selling a book on someone else's theory but babble on for hours. )  But some of the comments actually have merit

Nick Speed
1 year ago
If the Earth's core was flung out from the sun, it seems possible that it could have been so infinitely dense that it contained all the mass required to continue expanding out and solidifying, and expanding out again. If that's the case, the outward density of the core would eventually reach equilibrium with the inward density of the mantle and crust holding the core in however I'm not sure of the ramifications that would ensue. Following this theory, all planets may have originally been flung from their respective "Sun" and eventually over time have expanded out.


Lazy Jesus
3 months ago
Not expanding but rather, growing, the Earth is a living entity, consciously aware, alive in ways most people can not perceive. She is your (the human) mother, from her clay, you (the human) are her fruit.

Simon Ruszczak
11 months ago
If the sea and ocean floors are not more than 200 million years old, then it would mean oil and gas (at least under the seas and oceans) are not fossil fuels, but are produced abiotically (not from dead organisms).

nealadamsdotcom
1 year ago
Ask these questions of your Geology teacher.
1. If lighter continental rock differentiated from  the  heavier Basalt
layer below, how is it the lighter granite doesn't cover the whole
Earth, and not just one third.
2. Pangea clearly implies the whole  of a smaller Earth was once covered
by this lighter Granitic rock, why is it there is no deep oceanic area
that is older than 180 Million Years Old, in the pacific  just like in
the Atlantic?
3. Why are there no ancient fish fossils found in the deep oceans, older
than 70 Million Years Old?


Simon Ruszczak
11 months ago
4.  If the sea and ocean floors are less than 200 million years old, where did the oil and gas under them come from, they can't be fossil fuels.

Neal Adams
11 months ago
There is no oil under  the Deep Oceans!  There is oil under continental shelves. Every country that has dominion over part of the continental shelf of the ocean is investigating the possibility that petroleum resources may be found and developed there, with the help of modern technology. The estimated petroleum reserves of a region provide a solid incentive for capital investment in its economic and social development
Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Petroleum-from-the-Ocean.html#ixzz4j0qbb4wZ

Simon Ruszczak
11 months ago
Oil and gas have been discovered in deep ocean vents (Lost City, mid-Atlantic), and there are oil and gas reserves under the North Pole.
The deep ocean reserves would be harder to extract (obviously).

nealadamsdotcom
11 months ago
The question you have to ask is this. "IF" there are deep ocean reserves,.....where do they come from???
These crusts are no older than 180 Million Years old and MOST, much younger!   This crust was NEVER continental plate nor above water! Most deep ocean has no, or very little life to speak of,...mostly algea and microscopic plants and animals! So where did such oil come from?? None of this makes any sense, unless some other process, that we don't understand is going on,....or there JUST IS NO OR TINY  TINY AMOUNTS OF OIL!

Frederick Rhodes
9 months ago
nealadamsdotcom maybe, if there is deep ocean oil reserves, they were formed during one of the mass extinctions caused by excessive warming by excessive high co2 in the atmosphere, which are followed by ice ages lowering the sea levels and concentrating all that dead stuff into deep sea oil pockets.

Robert Gipson
9 months ago
Nope, oil is abiotic.

Frederick Rhodes
9 months ago
Robert Gipson that theory has been debunked, but if it were true, that means that the Earth produces its own oil just like other living growing organisms living on the face of earth.

Robert Yeahright
8 months ago
well that's odd because they have found oil wells in California that were capped in the 60's because they went dry , have filled back up. You should tell them that they aren't filling back up

[zorgon]

Jerry C
1 month ago
@Frederick, There has never been a mass extinction caused by high levels of atmospheric CO2. There have been mass extinctions that they claim were caused by warming, but there is actually very little actual proof for it, and all of the hypothesis that suggest warming was the cause of a given extinction were put forward AFTER the man made global warming lie became fashionable. The simple truth is that we do not know why those extinctions happened and the best we can do is guess.

If you look at the fact that not one CO2 based climate change model has come anywhere even close to being accurate, then logically you can come to only one conclusion, that being the fact that CO2 is not as much of a climate driver as they claim it is. When you take that obvious fact into account, then the mass extinctions they have laid at the feet of CO2 become impossible.

sbdreamin
1 year ago
it's expanding because it's pregnant and going to give birth soon... soon being relative.
[The John Lear Hypothesis ]

Aqua Fyre
2 months ago (edited)
The Universe is expanding Space between galaxies is expanding. So is the space between solar systems. Beyond this - space between the planets is expanding. Orbits are getting wider -- but so is the Sun. It too, has grown significantly since it's birth. This isn't in dispute. As it's grown, it has increased in temperature. Finally, Astro-physicists believe that even the space between atoms is expanding. Everything is expanding as it should

[Moron Removed ]

Simon Ruszczak
11 months ago
New science, not "medieval bullshit".

Robert Gipson
9 months ago
You're a moron.  It's not "medieval," it's the opposite of "flat earth," and there IS evidence for it.  Besdies the evidence cited in the above video, there's this:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.DMlibF93.dpbs

Scarakus
1 year ago (edited)
No part of any ocean floor is older than 180 million years old, fact. The Atlantic ocean is spreading apart at about an inch a year according to mainstream science, my best guess measuring with google earth puts the distance across the Atlantic around 3000 miles. So lets do some simple math: 180,000,000 inches (if the process is linear) / 12" (a foot) / 5820 ft (a mile) = 2,577.31 miles it has spread in the last 180 million years, The Same applies for the Pacific ocean. Source;



Full Size here
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates_fullscale.jpg

So this means only one thing, the Earth is expanding. watch Neil Adams discuss this topic;

https://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

[zorgon]

Country Bama
5 months ago
the earth is expanding because of a singularity in the middle that is creating protons.

Jose Silveira
2 weeks ago
Well, it makes sense - you get a similar effect when you bake a loaf of bread, it expands and cracks. A couple of years ago, I found Africa on a corn bread :-)

Roger Bartle
4 days ago
Astronauts on the ISS did a silly little (unsanctioned) experiment, they had a blob of water hanging in the air and they started it spinning by blowing through a straw. As it's rotational speed increased two things happened, it became an oblate sphere and it started to expand by centripetal force. in order to expand it had to pull air in to the middle, physics dictates this happened at the point of axis at both sides. They injected heavier material particles to see where they would go, well they went to the outside and tended to cluster. Hey it was all a bit of fun but as a model for the earth it may explain some things and contradict  some like the solid core, food for thought eh?

One other thing, as the planet expands the rotational speed would decrease exponentially, think of the skater doing a spin if they want to spin faster they tighten up, to slow the spin they open out, we may find our days becoming a little longer, orbital duration is not discussed here.

asherasator
2 weeks ago
Ughhhh cystals do what? They expand & grow. Planets like ours are created from gasses to solids & crystal growth.

Marc Delany
3 weeks ago
For a planet to grow, it has to change in relation to something that is not changing at the same rate... So if the universe and all the space between is expanding, it would not be apparent. Only can be measured if the "space" is changing at a different rate, less so...

And now back to the ORIGINAL QUESTION

Sharon Short
1 month ago
I'm just wondering where the materials that are feeding this growth are coming from. Do they simply appear in the center of the earth? Maybe matter is becoming less dense? If the contents are flattening, what is driving orogenic activity? This theory makes no sense.

[zorgon]

New Papers Confirm Sea Levels Aren't Rising Fast Enough
By Kenneth Richard on 1. September 2016

Coastal Land Area Expanding
More Land Area Above Sea Level Now Than During 1980s



A year ago, several geologists (Kench et al., 2015) published a paper in the journal Geology that revealed a curious phenomenon occurring along island coasts in the tropical Pacific.  Despite some of the highest rates of sea level rise in the world in this region (over 5 mm/yr  on average since the 1950s), the total land area for these islands has not only not shrunk while sea levels were rapidly rising, the coastal land area has expanded — by a net +7.3% — over the last 118 years.

Kench et al., 2015

"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "
Then, a few days ago, 6 scientists (Donchyts et al., 2016) published a paper online for the journal Nature confirming that the curious phenomenon in the tropical Pacific — coastal land growth exceeding recent sea level rise — has also been occurring across the world, or on a net global scale, since the mid-1980s.

Donchyts et al., 2016

Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years [1985-2015]
"Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas."
The succinct translation is that sea levels aren't rising fast enough to offset land area expansion.  The world's sea coasts are growing, not shrinking.

Scientists Surprised?

Interestingly, in the BBC press release for their Nature paper, the Donchyts et al. scientists expressed surprise ("the most surprising thing")  that coastal land growth has offset the recent sea level rise, and admitted that their findings ran contrary to expectations.

BBC  (press release)

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists' surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.  "We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."
The researchers said Dubai's coast had been significantly extended, with the creation of new islands to house luxury resorts.
"China has also reconstructed their whole coast from the Yellow Sea all the way down to Hong Kong," said Dr Baart.
Shoreline Changes Are Not Primarily Determined by Climate
It's a little puzzling that scientists should be surprised that the Earth's coasts aren't shrinking.  After all, relative sea level changes are not the predominant determinative factor affecting the growth or recession of land area.  Coastal erosion and accretion, tectonic uplift and subsidence...are far more influential.

Along the coasts of Alaska, for example, the land surface has been rapidly rising (uplift) for many decades.  Consequently, relative sea levels are falling in this region at a rate of -5 to -10 mm/yr (-2 to -4 inches per decade) according to NOAA tide gauges.



Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, on the other hand, the land surface has been on a long-term sinking (subsidence) trend.  Consequently, relative sea levels are rising at rates of +5 to +10 mm/yr (+2 to +4 inches per decade) according to NOAA tide gauges.



Obviously, these regional sea level trends are only very minimally — if at all —  connected to climate-related sea level changes — or, for that matter, anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

As Testut et al. (2016) have concluded, "sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling shoreline changes."  It's the "non-climate" factors that predominantly determine relative sea level changes over time.

Testut et al., 2016

"We show that Grande Glorieuse Island has increased in area by 7.5 ha between 1989 and 2003, predominantly as a result of shoreline accretion [growth]: accretion occurred over 47% of shoreline length, whereas 26% was stable and 28% was eroded. Topographic transects and field observations show that the accretion is due to sediment transfer from the reef outer slopes to the reef flat and then to the beach. This accretion occurred in a context of sea level rise: sea level has risen by about 6 cm in the last twenty years and the island height is probably stable or very slowly subsiding. This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area, especially sediment availability and transport."
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, a renowned sea-level expert who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed scientific publications during his career, has recently confirmed there has been a lack of climate-related sea level rise in areas of the world where disastrous climate-related sea level rise has been assumed to already be occurring: the Maldives and along the coasts of Bangladesh.   Severe coastal erosion can explain the relative sea level changes in these regions.  In fact, Mörner reports that the Indian Ocean as a whole has been "virtually stable over the last 40-50 years."

Mörner, 2016

"Coastal erosion is caused by many different processes like changes in prevailing wind direction, coastal currents, re-establishment of a new equilibrium profile, sea level rise, sea level fall, exceptional storms, hurricanes/cyclones, and tsunami events. These coastal factors are reviewed with special attention to effects due to changes in sea level. In the Indian Ocean, sea level seems to have remained virtually stable over the last 40-50 years. Coastal erosion in the Maldives was caused by a short lowering in sea level in the 1970s. In Bangladesh, repeated disastrous cyclone events cause severe coastal erosion, which hence has nothing to do with any proposed sea level rise. Places like Tuvalu, Kiribati and Vanuatu – all notorious for an inferred sea level rise – have tide gauges which show no on-going sea level rise. Erosion is by no means a sign of sea level rise. Coastal erosion occurs in uplifting regions as well as in subsiding regions, or virtually stable areas. Coastal morphology provides excellent insights to the stability."

Scientists: Sea Levels Are Barely Rising — And The Rise Is 'Not Anthropogenic In Origin'
The sea-levels-are-dangerously-rising narrative has become so commonly headlined in the popular media that it is effectively considered an unquestioned "fact" that needs no further investigation.

But some scientists have actually taken the time to investigate relative sea level rise in long-term records from tide gauges.  And what they have found is that in some locations sea levels are rising, in other locations sea levels are falling, and most of the world's tide gauges show that sea levels are stable, with no significant trends either way.  In fact, scientists assert that the overall rate of rise from the 19th/20th centuries to now — including the most recent decades  — has only been about 1 mm/yr, which is about 4 inches per century.  These modest rates are well within the range of natural variability.

Beenstock et al., 2014

"Tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise."
"We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1 mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year."

Parker and Ollier, 2016

"Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show "relative" rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year. This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating.  ... We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios."

Furthermore, even in the regions of the world where sea levels are indeed rising, and rising rapidly (i.e., the tropical Pacific), scientists have acknowledged that an anthropogenic fingerprint cannot even be detected in the sea level rise trends.  Natural oscillations related to internal ocean processes are predominantly what drive sea level changes, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Palanisamy et al., 2015

"y making use of 21 CMIP5 coupled climate models, we study the contribution of external forcing to the Pacific Ocean regional sea level variability over 1993–2013, and show that according to climate models, externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry."

"Furthermore, regressed CMIP5 MME-based sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific over the altimetry period do not display any positive sea level trend values that are comparable to the altimetry based sea level signal after having removed the contribution of the decadal natural climate mode. This suggests that the residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin. In addition the amplitude of the sea level spatial trend pattern from regressed CMIP5 MME is low over the altimetry period in the tropical Pacific. This amplitude is significantly lower than the expected error in trend patterns from satellite altimetry (in the order of 2 mm yr-1 to 3 mm yr−1, Ablain et al 2015, Couhert et al 2015) and suggest that satellite altimetry measurement is still not accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20 year tropical Pacific sea level trends."

Hansen et al., 2016

"[T]he large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region."

Summary

To summarize, the world's shorelines have been growing, not shrinking, in recent decades.  This growth or relative net change in coastal land area is primarily related to the effects of non-climatic processes such as coastal erosion (or the lack of it) and subsidence and uplift trends —  just as the loss of coastal land area in some locations is predominantly due to these same natural non-climatic processes.

Tide gauges averaged from all over the globe indicate that sea levels are rising very modestly, and well within the range of natural variability.  In the regions of the world where sea levels are rising, the rise is predominantly due to internal processes, as an anthropogenic fingerprint in sea level rise trends has not been detectable.

Of course, the above analysis does not fit the narrative of anthropogenically-induced dangerous sea level rise that will wipe out coastal cities and lead to the catastrophic displacement of 100s of millions of people world-wide in the coming decades.  Perhaps this is why some may find this summary of scientific conclusions undermining this popular doomsday narrative so . . . surprising.

SOURCE:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.DMlibF93.W5ltPYOi.dpbs

[ArMaP]

7) Gravity: IF the earth was smaller in the past that would mean less mass and therefore less gravity. That would allow the Dinosaurs to move around easier ( a fact that has stumped many scientists as they figure in today's gravity they couldn't move around) and make Pyramid building easier.

Not exactly. If the Earth was smaller and had a smaller mass, gravity would be less.

If the Earth is expanding without mass being added then the mass has always been the same and gravity at the surface is less than it was on a smaller Earth.

[zorgon]

Not exactly. If the Earth was smaller and had a smaller mass, gravity would be less.

If the Earth is expanding without mass being added then the mass has always been the same and gravity at the surface is less than it was on a smaller Earth.

That would be true... but then the Dinosaur theory would fail   So since we KNOW Dinosaurs were real... and we THINK we know Dinosaurs couldn't walk in today's gravity...  I will favor the lower mass version

[ArMaP]

... and we THINK we know Dinosaurs couldn't walk in today's gravity...

Do we really?

[zorgon]

Do we really?

'we' being general main stream science Glad you asked that

Was weaker gravity responsible for large dinosaur size?

How did the sauropods—the long-necked dinosaurs like Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, and Diplodocus that grew to be the largest land animals that ever lived—get so huge? The full answer to that question is complicated and interesting, involving a lot of science I don't know. Come to think of it, the true answer involves a lot of physics I don't know: calculating the compressive strength of bones, the fluid dynamics involved in getting blood from the heart up to the head, and so forth. So, I'll leave unabashed sauropod snuggler Brian Switek to talk about the biological and reproductive aspects of the big dinosaurs, and address another hypothesis: that Earth's gravity was noticeably weaker in the Mesozoic Era, the Age of Dinosaurs.

https://galileospendulum.org/2013/02/25/was-weaker-gravity-responsible-for-large-dinosaur-size/

Scientists delight in devising explanations for the great dinosaur extinctions.


Dinosaurs and The Gravity Problem

But there are several questions which they have failed to even ask, much less tried to answer.

Why, for instance, in all of the time claimed to have passed since the dinosaur extinctions, has nothing ever re-evolved to the sizes of the large dinosaurs?

If such sizes worked for creatures which ruled the Earth for tens of millions of years, then why would not some species of elephant or rhinoceros have evolved to such a size again?

What kinds of problems, if any, would sauropod sizes entail in our world as it is presently constituted?

Could it be that some aspect of our environment might have to be massively different for such creatures to exist at all?

A careful study of the sizes of these antediluvian creatures, and what it would take to deal with such sizes in our world, has led me to believe that the super animals of Earth's past could not live in our present world at all.

A look at sauropod dinosaurs as we know them today requires that we relegate the brontosaur, once thought to be one of the largest sauropods, to welterweight or at most middleweight status. Fossils found in the 1970's now dwarf this creature.

Both the brachiosaur and the supersaur were larger than the brontosaur, and the ultrasaur appears to have dwarfed them all.1 The ultrasaur is now estimated to have weighed 180 tons.2

A comparison of dinosaur lifting requirements to human lifting capabilities is enlightening, though there might be objections to doing so. One objection that might be raised is that animal muscle tissue was somehow "better" than that of humans. This, however, is known not to be the case.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm

How did the huge dinosaurs cope with gravity and loads on bones, etc.?

It's very costly to be a huge animal. Your mass grows in cube when you scale up, but you still only have two/four legs to support the same weight. This increases the pressure that your body needs to cope with.(this is easy to see if you compare an ant with an elephant. The elephants legs are much thicker and strudier in comparison to it's body)

Looking at a T-rex for example, speciemns have been found that are believed to weight more than 9 tonnes, compared to an elephants 10 tonnes. T-rex has ofcorse has only two legs. The heaviest dionsaur is believed to have weight 80 tonnes. That is the weight of about 20 cars on each of their feet.

How could they support such massive weights?

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/how-did-the-huge-dinosaurs-cope-with-gravity-and-loads-on-bones-etc

Expanding Earth evidence: Dinosaurs

Is ancient megaflora and megafauna (relatively massive plants, animals, dinosuars, insects etc) evidence that the planet Earth was previously smaller than today?

There are a number of Expanding Earth theories and the (Stephen Hurrell) theory and a book about dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth is that a smaller planet means a lower gravity, so you can have much larger living things as they are not restricted by a heavier gravity.

https://www.xearththeory.com/dinosaurs/

So YES  'we' ARE thinking about it   And google will show you that it's been on the minds of many... for many years.

[ArMaP]

'we' being general main stream science Glad you asked that

I didn't see any link to main stream science saying they are thinking they "know Dinosaurs couldn't walk in today's gravity". On the contrary, the links you posted (I didn't read the Biblioteca Pleyades article) say that dinosaurs did not need lower gravity to be that big.

So YES  'we' ARE thinking about it   And google will show you that it's been on the minds of many... for many years.

You said "... and we THINK we know Dinosaurs couldn't walk in today's gravity...". All articles I have seen written by scientists say that scientists only think about the lower gravity theory to debunk it.

[The Seeker]

Going to stick this in here for now, since Kenya is part of this thread; A dam burst earlier this afternoon, in Kenya, with reports of at least 40 fatalities; haven't had a chance to research it much, my ISP has been dropping out every 15-20 minutes since midnight last night...