I received 5 very good questions regarding the Dynamic Matter postulate.

1: Is all mass being affected equally, all the time?

On page 3 refer to equation 2.2. This is represents a significant outcome of my research. By applying Newton’s law of gravity, the dimensions can be re-arranged by the simple application of algebra to show that space is proportional to mass. There is no violation of mathematical principals in this deduction. PHD college math professors have reviewed it and agreed. However, some theoretical physicists bristle at it. This is a surprise because it is just a basic balancing of dimensions, a discipline that is required math. Later in the paper I show how this deduction can be extended to an equality.

This equation is the bedrock of the Dynamic Matter postulate. Again, gravity is the center point of my research. The Dynamic Matter postulate theorizes that the force of gravity is conducted by a relative motion of mass to space. For this to happen, space may be converting to mass at the most basic level of matter …hadrons and quarks.

- Wouldn’t this also cause fossils to be more massive?

Yes it would. On page 40 of my book (available for free at my website: dynamicmatter.com) I go through the mathematical analysis of the size of fossils. It turns out that what is perceived as a 70 ton dinosaur 150 million years ago was actually about the size of an elephant. Elephants represent the evolutionary limit of animal size in the present gravity environment. The fossils have been growing in mass and volume with the eons.

- How does a perpetual increase in mass explain the different elements, in different proportions, on the various moons and planets?

This question is referenced to question 1. If the postulated perpetual increase in matter is indeed happening, it probably is happening at the heart of the atom. Basic matter is the same throughout the universe, but varies due to other factors, primarily temperature and pressure.

- An argument against all mass being equally affected all the time is the continents would still cover the entire surface of the Earth

This question is referred to the answer in question three. It is an excellent question! It is a significant issue to resolve the differential expansion rate between Earth’s crust and Earth’s core. The Dynamic Matter postulate in its basic form theorizes a constant expansion for all matter through a conversion of space to mass and thereby outlining a mechanism for the conduction of gravity. Space is not mass or energy…it is space. However, it is equal to and convertible to mass and energy. See equation 2.2 of my paper. Space has no temperature. So what happens when space is being converted to and added to the mass of a hadron of iron in the Earth’s core and a hadron of the granite elements in the crust? That new mass is immediately exposed to the temperature of the host matter. The core has a temperature of 10,800 degrees F. The crust has a mean average temperature of about 200 to 300 degrees temperature depending on depth. This would imply that the new matter from the gravity/space conversion would be expanding immediately upon conversion due to the temperature of the different hosts. This rate of differential expansion can be calculated by applying the coefficient of expansion for the elements involved and the temperature differential. This implies that there would be two causes for expansion – 1. The expansion due to the dynamic matter process. 2. The expansion due to temperature.

You are correct in your question in that if the expansion is completely equal, as per the basic Dynamic Matter postulate, then the continents would be expanding at the same rate as the core. This would cause the dynamic matter expansion to be almost completely transparent, and it is except when large variations are entered into the observations such as size, distance and time. i.e. spinning galaxies

However, when the temperature differential is added to the problem of Earth’s expansion then we would realize a rate of expansion of about 3 times greater for the core than the crust.

This is a good example of some of the problems in physics. Often many factors have to be considered. The Earth’s rotation is slowing. In the 1920’s Jeffries theorized this was due to tidal friction. This was later applied to the Moon’s increasing altitude. Scientists jumped on this explanation as the complete answer…. similarly with subduction theory and many other problems in science. The appendix in my book presents an extensive study of tidal friction. It is very likely that the force of the ocean tides is responsible for only a small part of Earth’s slowing rotation, and almost no effect on the Moon.

- Why is the Moon gaining altitude?

This is covered in Chapter 13 of my book. The Moon’s increasing distance is an “angular momentum” problem. If we only calculated the Moon’s distance based on the dynamic matter effect, then the distance would be decreasing….because both the Earth and Moon are increasing is size. However, when it is resolved as an angular momentum problem and applying the Dynamic Matter constant, then the result is within 2% of what we observed by laser distancing measurements.

Hey, you’re the goto exeprt. Thanks for hanging out here.

Surripsing to think of something like that