9.2 Proving Earth used to be smaller and denser, while weight and gravity are increasing with time (no paywall)
New Age Physics — The physics of interdimensional worlds finally explained (2 of 7)
9.2 Proving Earth used to be smaller and denser, while weight and gravity are increasing with time
If we could prove the third type of growth and shrinkage of matter, we would essentially confirm the existence of other dimensional worlds. In concept, since it is similar, it would also validate the second type of growth and shrinkage of matter. Except of course that, in the second type, the electrons grow and shrink outside the atoms instead of inside. This is no small test, and the proof certainly would be revolutionary.
At this present time, it is not obvious how it could be properly tested. Except perhaps, through proving that the Earth used to be smaller than it is today, albeit denser, and that weight and gravity not only used to be less, they both still increase with time.
It would explain why gigantic animals, such as dinosaurs and pterodactyls, came to be in the first place, and had no issue moving or flying around, on a smaller planet without oceans, mainly covered by all the continents. This was discussed already in section 2.7 How to move to other dimensions?, where there are links to Neal Adams’ animated simulations, showing that all continents used to fit perfectly together into a smaller sphere.
Let’s begin with this quote from section 1.2c The third type of growth and shrinkage of matter:
“The process causing the expansion of all matter behind the scenes, will be discussed shortly, in the section about gravity and orbits. But for now, most of the natural acceleration within orbits, and the enlargement of orbital rings, does not affect the interdimensional density of matter, or the size of particles and objects, within our resulting reality. But a tiny part of this process is, and in time, particles and objects orbit faster, and grow slightly more, even in our resulting reality.
“Consequently, as time goes by, all particles orbit slightly faster, all orbits enlarge slightly more, all particles and objects become larger, and the time rate marginally accelerates, as we constantly move into higher dimensions. Which makes any time and place in history, its very own dimension, where matter vibrates at a unique frequency, or unique resonance.”
The test discussed below, is not exactly about proving directly the third type of growth and shrinkage of matter. Instead, it is about proving that a tiny part of the invisible process, of the expansion of matter, leads to an actual and real expansion of matter, in our resulting reality.
If that is true, then it proves the third type of growth and shrinkage of matter. But if it is not true, it does not disprove it. Because the third type of growth and shrinkage of matter could be true, even if the tiny expansion of matter in time, within our resulting reality, is untrue.
It should be extremely simple to test that weight and gravity, not only used to be less than they are today, but they both still increase with time. Right? If we drop a mass of 1 kg from a height of one metre, and weigh it once it is at rest, carefully measure the results, and repeat the experiment every year, we will notice that weight and gravity increase with time.
Why? Because particles and planets are increasing slightly in speed all the time, causing the orbit and the size of all the particles, and of all the astronomical bodies, to enlarge, in an expansion of all objects that is visible and can be measured.
Consequently, the Earth and everything else grow in time, enough to cause the continental drift, meaning the continents are constantly slightly moving away from each other. Moreover, the distance between objects reduces faster as they grow, which is gravity increasing. And the force required to move, accelerate, or hold an object at rest against gravity, meaning its weight, would also increase with time.
But if it is that simple, why have we not noticed it before? Countless experiments have been done. Surely it is verified, that a mass of 1 kg must always fall at the same rate, and its weight, in a same location, must always be the same? As it turns out, it is not so simple to prove this point after all.
First, it was assessed previously in sections 1.2a The first type of expansion and contraction of matter, and 3.4 Gravity and the formation of galaxies, that objects don’t all fall at the same rate. It was stated that our measurements of falling objects on Earth, are too limited to even notice a difference, between a falling bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum, or a massive aircraft carrier and a marble, dropped from high up. They do appear to fall at the same rate, when theoretically, whether we use Newton, Einstein, or Atomic Expansion Theory, they should not. In all three theories of gravity, larger or more massive objects should reach the ground first.
And if the experiment is not performed in a vacuum, terminal velocity could skew the results. At some point, and not all at the same point, the falling objects would stop accelerating, until they reach the ground, because of the objects’ buoyancy and the friction with the air.
Therefore, from how high up must we drop two objects, of different size and mass, in a vacuum, to finally notice a difference? Excellent question, which requires an answer before we perform any test or experiment.
Another major issue is that, two different objects with a mass of 1 kg each, cannot reliably be trusted to be 1 kg at all, or to have the same mass, unless we compare them side by side. Which must bring discrepancies between different experiments, performed at different times and locations, using different masses and instruments.
Furthermore, it is said that a mass of 1 kg is always the same. It is true that the number of electrons, atoms and molecules of a 1 kg object, should theoretically always remain the same, even when the object becomes less dense and enlarges. But how do we measure or calculate this mass?
We establish the mass of an object using its weight, also the force required to move that object — or its resistance to acceleration — and the force of gravity. All of which change, depending on the location of the object on Earth or in space. An object of a certain mass will not weight the same at the equator, in London, or on the Moon, since the force of gravity is not the same in all locations.
Plus, gravity is different depending on if the object is free falling, where only the size of the objects matters, or if it stays on the ground, where the density of matter also affects gravity on the ground. Gravity on the Moon is not uniform. While it is one sixth the gravity of the Earth on the near side, it could be up to one third the gravity of the Earth on the other side, where the composition of the ground is less dense than on the near side, where the centre of gravity is located.
And finally, if all objects in the universe become less dense with time, we might not notice any difference in our measurements. The interdimensional density of matter is not the same as the traditional density of matter. It is not solely the space between the molecules which changes, it is also the size of all the particles, as well as the spacing between them, which change with the acceleration of all particles.
To make matters worse, the teams in charge of establishing the International System of Units, works very hard to ensure that all units remain exactly the same, year after year. Of course, a kilogram, a second and a metre should always remain the same, otherwise how could we compare accurately our measurements?
But what if our kilogram, second and metre really change every year? Means would have to be found to ensure that they don’t, that they are constantly adjusted to correct any discrepancy. As a result, we might believe that gravity and weight do not increase with time, when in fact they do.
There is a string of constants in nature, which we use to measure accurately most of our units. But then again, how can we be sure that these constants are truly always constant, especially in relative terms, and that this does not skew the end results?
For example, we could not use the size of the Earth to establish the length of a metre, as we used to in the past, since both the Earth and the metre stick may be growing. I heard that a metre does not exactly measure the same, neither is the speed of light, from one year to another. This is not surprising, because today we are using the speed of light, to accurately calculate the length of a metre. But this is a mistake, since the speed of light is not constant, as discussed in the first three sections of chapter 5.
And how do we measure the speed of light? We use the second and the length of a metre. It is a vicious circle, we use variables to measure variables, that were originally measured, by what we are measuring. So, if all these variables increase in time, or change, we will fail to notice, as they are constantly self-readjusting, and self-standardising each other.
Also, we cannot accurately measure gravity using light or light beams. What we see is always relative, because the speed of light is relative, and variable. And now that time and mass are no longer relative, meaning they are constant, there must be a bunch of measurements out there requiring correction.
And then, the second is defined by using the vibrational rate of the caesium 133 atom. But if the atoms, and the electrons within the atoms, are constantly growing, and the electrons are accelerating, and their orbits are enlarging, then it must also affect the measurement of the second.
That is all three units required to measure gravity and weight — the metre, the second and the mass (measured through weight and gravity) — which potentially we have been adjusting and normalising as time goes by, while for all that time, they may really have been changing, without us realising. Therefore, how can we be sure that we are measuring gravity or the speed of light correctly?
In view of this new physics, if the speed of light, and the frequency of a caesium 133 atom, are not constants of nature, then what about the other constants of nature, upon which the measurements of our units depend?
Everything changes in time. Particles, orbits and objects are expanding, both behind the scenes, and in our resulting reality, while we are not even aware. And although we might think that our measurements are always the same, relatively and proportionally speaking they might not.
This might begin to explain why, if the Earth is growing in time, and the density of matter is becoming less, that weight and gravity also increase with time, and that the speed of light is variable, we might have failed to notice. It also shows how it might be difficult, to verify such a state of affair. But it might be within our capabilities to prove it, if we specifically set ourselves to do so.
To prove the third type of growth and shrinkage of matter, and essentially to prove that weight and gravity increase with time, we would need to drop the very same object from a very high height — and I mean at a significant distance — at the very same location, year after year. We would need to use the very same measuring instruments, to measure the fall and the weight on the ground of the object when at rest. And it would have to be done in a total vacuum, or as close to it as it is possible. Maybe it could be tested in space, outside the International Space Station, but I recommend the Moon.
Despite all this, I do wonder if we could prove it. If time and gravity are accelerating, the metre is getting longer, and mass, or at least its weight, is increasing, is it possible that we would still get the same measurements year after year, even although these values increase in real time?
Measurements are, after all, just an equivalence and comparison between quantities and variables. If all variables increase over time, we might get the same relative and proportional results, and be unable to prove any of it, even when it is happening in real time, and that such changes must be visible, and should be measurable.
This said, there might already be some data or proof somewhere, unrelated to measuring falling objects or weighing them, providing an indication that this is true. For example, the evidence that once upon a time, all continents were glued together to form one large continent called Pangea, which led to the idea of continental drift.
And now, it seems that all continents once formed a perfect smaller sphere, as if the Earth was much smaller in the past. This is such an indication that these theories might be correct. This is not to say that the plate tectonics theory, to explain the continental drift, is wrong. However, what drives these plates to move and cause earthquakes, could be the growth of the planet.
Let’s hope people will start looking into this and find other evidence.
Download New Age Physics Free Chapters:
Book PDF, Docx PDF, DOCX, Kindle ePub, Kindle Mobi, Apple Books, Nook, Google Play, Kobo, Generic ePub
