ImagingGeek,

I am declaring a red herring alert for your last post. Let’s start with your links that supposedly invalidate a change in surface gravitation.

The ‘Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant’ clearly purports to invalidate the Earth Expansion Theory, which I do not support. You stated:

“The first of those papers directly measured paleogravity at several sites on the earth. Had your little magical gravitational change happened they would have observed it. Instead they found that the force of gravity remained constant, throughout the earths history, at the sites they tested. Given that they tested site which were part of pangea, that's a pretty big hole in your hypothesis.”

The first of the papers did not measure paleogravity, it measured PALEOMAGNETISM. If you don’t know the difference, we’re in real trouble. Only measurements of paleogravity can deduce the size of the Earth in the past. That eliminates that link.

The second link is still not working. When I copy/paste the URL at the top of the screen, nothing happens. How about summarizing the website in a paragraph with direct quotes supporting your position. Or, better yet, supply a link that works.

I’ll repeat my statement:
“In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning.”

If you go back and reread your statements, even though you used the term COR, you were solving the problem as though the Earth were not rotating or rotating at a very slow rate, like the moon. In other words, you were ignoring the moment of inertia (i.e., the rotational mass) of the core(s)/Pangea.
This is why you came to the erroneous conclusion that equilibrium would be established when the tiny center of mass shift of the Earth due to the consolidation of Pangea would be offset by an equal center of mass shift due to the wobble exerting a reaction-force on the core(s).

You claim that I’m correcting you with lies???? Signs of desperation.

My example for a 54% change in surface gravity on Pangea (i.e., it would have been 54% of current “g”) was based on a shift of the center of mass of the Earth from the current center by a distance of one sixth of the diameter of the Earth. Considering we would be dealing with the shift of the inner core, outer core and the densest part of the mantle, I don’t find this to be unobtainable. And yes, my r^2/d^2 (remember ‘d’ is not diameter but distance from Pangea’s COM to the new COM of the Earth) was derived from Newton’s law.

Laze