Dear Prof. Dr. Adriaens,

Tanks for answering my email.

Let's start our discussion with this question:
Why do the insects have small bodies? (Physiological reason) How is your answer to this question?
Please read my article and tell me your idea.
http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap1-1page.html

Sincerely
Ramin Mardfar
�������������

Dear Ramin,

It is indeed evident that the complexity of the circulatory system will play a crucial role in determining the size functioning animal can get, but even here there are exceptions that indicate that being bigger not necessarily involve having a more complex circulatory system. Take as an example small mammals, like mice (with a well developed circulatory system), and compare it with some large jelly fish (that actually lack a circulatory system). These jellyfish are larger than mice.
You could then say that this is a bad example, as jellyfish can rely on the aquatic environment to allow exchange of molecules. Well, then there are even insects that are bigger than some mammals. For example, some giant phasmids like Eurycantha or goliath beetles (Goliathus sp) are bigger than the smallest mammals. Goliath beetles can get up to 71 grams, whereas the smallest mammals (such as pygmy-marmosets, bumblebee bat, Etruscan shrew) can get as small as 24-30 millimeters long and 1.5-2.5 grams (in case of Etruscan shrew).
So, your principle is in general true and is physiologically very logical, I would say that your last sentence below (No creature on Earth is an exception to this principle) is a bit too strong (examples above prove some creatures form exceptions).

Best regards
Dominique Adriaens

����������������

Dear Prof. Adriaens,

Why do the insects have small bodies?
Scientists' answer to this answer:
The hard exoskeleton stops insects from growing larger.

The article you read is the first and unique article that explains the relation between complexity of blood circulatory system and hugeness of animals (there is not any book or article available in this respect up to now). Although it seems obvious and evident, but it's so important and has complex system at the same time and many questions must be answered by appropriate answers among it.
You have mentioned one of these questions: Why small mammals like mouse have small body sizes despite of this fact that they have strong and complex blood circulatory system?
The answer of this question has come in the following paper.

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/28.html

Sincerely
Ramin Mardfar
�������

Dear Ramin,

Sorry, don�t have time for this speculative story telling. I really don�t think that your hypothesis (that because insects were larger long ago and not anymore, gravity must have been less strong then) makes any sense at all. The evidence you provide is so circumstantial, that it has no scientific value at all. If you want to have data on fluctuations in earth gravity, you�ll have to look at geological data. Not at this kind of data, that can be affected by so many other parameters. If gravity is to blame, why then do you find so many heavier flying animals today than you had in those insects before? Flying is about generating lift, so about aerodynamics as well. You seem to ignore this completely, as well as many other factors influencing flight performance in animals.

Best
Dominique
�����������

Dear Dominique Adriaens,

Be a bit braver.

Each animal must be compared with it's same class in the past. Today's insects with insects in the past time, birds with birds in the past, mammals with mammals in the past, ...
There were insects bigger than today's insects. There were birds bigger than today's birds. Mammals in the past were bigger than today's mammals. And same as reptiles, amphibians, mollusks,...
The reason of getting smaller of these classes of animals and plants is increase in gravity. Gravity increase decreases the power of circulatory system. Thus the animal is forced to make its size smaller.
Ramin
.........................................................................

Hi Ramin,

Thus the animal is forced to make its size smaller.
>> sorry, but an animal can�t change a thing about it�s own size, even if it wanted to.
>> anyway, a more correct scientific approach is that you should look for all alternative hypothyses that could explain why larger animals have existed in the past (for a moment even ignoring that there is no reason to assume that animals could not become bigger again if environmental conditions were right), not just stick to this gravity story and then assume it is the truth. There are just too many loose ends to that story to make it scientifically defendable in my opinion.

Best wishes
Dominique
......................................................

Dear Dominique Adriaens,

>> sorry, but an animal can�t change a thing about it�s own size, even if it wanted to.
One animal can not, but several races of animals in a long period of time can.
Look at progenitors of families and animal classes. All of them are larger than their present children.
http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/the_graph_of_land_animals__size_during_the_time.jpg

>> There are just too many loose ends to that story to make it scientifically defendable in my opinion.
I'll get grateful if you mention one of those loose ends.

Ramin
��������
Hi Ramin,
to give some quick ones:
- What about geological evidence of reduced gravity forces during that period?
- What would have made that reduction in gravity possible (knowing that G=m*g)?
- If true, it should also be reflected in the structural differences in plants during that period and the plants now (and I don�t just mean size) - Why are there then still some large animals?
- Did all the largest animals live during that period that gravity was lower?
- Etc, etc, etc, etc

Best wishes
Dominique
.........................................................................

-What about geological evidence of reduced gravity forces during that period? - What would have made that reduction in gravity possible (knowing that G=m*g)?

Dominique Adriaens,
.........................................

http://www.dinosaurhome.com/a-new-theory-about-extinction-of-dinosaurs-47954.html

An increase in gravity comes with an increase in size of the Earth. The Earth has stayed the same size since it's origin. Your theory" isn't really likely and isn't even a theory. Sorry.

Raptor Lewis
..............................

Yes, earth is growing.

Ramin
......................

Prove it!! How can the Earth Grow?

Raptor Lewis
...........................

With an increase in mass.

Ramin
.....................

Okay, how is the earth increasing in mass? You still ahven't proved it to me.

Raptor Lewis
......................

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap2-1page.html

How can the gravity increase?

At the first look the increase of gravity may seem some strange, but by taking some care, we understand that it is not as impossible as it seem. The Earth can increase its gravity by several methods. In fact the Earth can increase its gravity by using for method.
One of the methods, by which the earth can increase its gravitation, is to decrease the speed of its rotation. We know that the earth rotates around itself once a day, and by the effect this rotation centrifugal force is exerted on its inhabitants. The most the speed of the rotation, the most will be the increase of the centrifugal force. And because this force is against the direction of earth's traction, when calculation the gravity of earth's surface its value is deducted from the earth's traction, and the remainder indicates the gravity on the earth's surface. So the greater the centrifugal force, the less the weight of its inhabitants, and the less this force, the more the weight of its inhabitants. If we are to accept that the gravity has increased from past up to now, we should observe the deduction of centrifugal force from the past up to now. That is we should accept that in the past the earth rotated faster around itself, and now it rotates slowly. Have such an act been done in the past really? The scientists believe that, because of the loosening of the earth's energy with the effect of friction, the rotation of the earth around itself becomes slower at the time of tides. That is the past the earth rotated faster around itself but by the passage of time its rotation became slower. So we see that such an action occurs in reality, and we can accept the increase of gravity with high degree of insurance.
Another way, by which the earth can increase its gravity, is to increase its mass. The earth is able to increase its mass by two methods: one method is to receive mass from the outside of the earth, and the other one is that this mass is added to it inside the earth. In the first method which the mass must be added from the outside, we can see the meteorite, the annual amount of which is 5 million ton. It means that this amount of material is added to the mass of the earth each year. The sun also distributes some part of its mass, in the from of particles, to the space around it, and 2.1kg of this amount is added to the earth per second. And also, the earth receives 14-ton cosmic dust from the space around. So we see that, in fact, the earth receives mass from the space surrounding it.
But what about the increase of earth's mass inside it? Assume that we are pumping a ball by a pump. In fact we increase the air inside the ball. Because the ball's shell has a certain volume, but if we want to pump it very much, the additional air will exit from its hole or it will be torn up and the air will exit. The earth's sell has a certain volume like the ball, and if the mass inside increase, the additional materials will exit through a hole or crack from the inside of the earth. Does such an action occur in reality? We know about the outflow of molten materials from the inside of the earth to its surface. These materials exit either from the volcano, which are like holes on the earth's shell, or through the long cracks, which are under the oceans. So, in fact, we observe the increase of the earth's mass. So we can accept the increase of the gravity with high degree of insurance. The third method for the increase of the gravity is related to the following law:
"Mass of material increases by the effect of movement."
Of course this law is related to high speeds? Can the earth have high speeds? We know that there are so many galaxies in the world, and the theory of "expanding universe" says that these galaxies become far a way from each other, every moment. The speed of their going away depends on their distance. That is, the remoter the two galaxies are from each other, the higher is the speed of their going away. If the distance between two galaxies is very much, those two galaxies will go away with very high speed. If we consider tow objects in these two remote galaxies, they will be moving with very high-speed relation to each other. Now, assume that, one of these galaxies, is our Milky Way, and the other one is another certain galaxy which is very distant from Milky Way. Also assume that, one of those two objects which are on the galaxies, is our own earth which is on the Milky way, and other object is another certain sphere on the other galaxy. In this case the earth has a very high speed relative to this certain sphere, and the earth is moving with a very high speed relative to that certain sphere.
So we see that there are numerous objects in the world around us, that the earth is moving with a very high speeds relative to them. So, according to the law of the law of increase mass because of the movement with very high speed, the mass of the of the earth can increase each moment. And as result, its gravity can increase. The fourth method, by which the gravity of ears can be increased, is the decrease of the earth's ray with fixed mass. That is, the earth should be denser. In this case, the earth, like some other starts must be more compressed and smaller.
So, by approaching the surface of the earth to its center, the gravity on the surface will be more. But in fact, the evidences do not show such an action, and the earth doesn't use this method to increase its gravity.
So, we notice that, at the first look the increase of the earth's gravity seems some strange, but in fact it is possible, and this action occurs in reality, and the earth increase its gravity, gradually, by the passage of time, and we can understand the increase of the gravity by its effects on the body size of the animals.

Ramin
................................

Okay, I admit it's possible. But, do we have proof that this happened 65 million years ago? No, I don't think so. We have found large quantities of iridium in rocks from the Late Cretaceous. Iridium is rare on Earth but, is abundant in meteors. This indicates that a meteor hit the Earth 65 million years ago somewhere in Central America causing the K-T Extinction. There is evidence to support that. The mass extinction seems to have been caused by an impact in space. As it was a massive and sudden extinction, geologists and paleontologists assume it wasn't gradual and they went extinct because of a major catastrophe.

Raptor Lewis
.............................

Did all the largest animals live during that period that gravity was lower?

Dominique Adriaens

...............................

Earth gravity is increasing, in the past, now, and future. Not only, in 65 million years ago.

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap3-1page.html

The extinction of dinosaurs and the gravity increase

From the earliest days that the big bones of past animals were found, some questions about their decline came up, which continued up to this day. By observing the fossils of giant dinosaurs, about several million years ago, this question comes up that, which factors caused them to decline?

Scientist has made many efforts to answer this question, and they suggested many theories in this case. Theories like the outbreak of diseases, decreasing food and eating of their eggs by other smaller mammals.

Among these theories, there is one theory which is of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of most people, this theory which came up by two American geologists from California�s university (Berkeley), Luis Alvarez and his son Walter at recent years of seventh decade, is about the collision of meteorite with earth. This theory says that: A rock with 10-15km diameter and about one thousand billion ton weight, with 150 thousand km/h entered earth's atmosphere and friction of this giant rock on the air caused the sublimation of its outer layers. Four or five seconds later the big core of this big meteorite collided the surface of sea and made a big wave with height of 1km. This wave was distributed on the oceans and cover seashores. Collision of meteorite sent a mixture of steam and dust and stones on the earth. All of these stems, smokes and dusts made a big curtain on earth and for several months or perhaps years the earth was in an absolute dark. These events occurred about 65 million years ago and declined dinosaurs.

If the decline of animals was related to a special period, it was possible to rely on this theory, but as we knew, animals at every time, have lost some species. Perhaps, at one time, these declines were very much, but in any case, declines were existed at every periods of time. If we accept that the collision of a giant meteor it with earth and formation of dust and smoke in 65 million years ago caused the decline of dinosaurs, how we can explain of Endocras with 4.5m diameter, about 500 million years ago. At that time did a giant meteorite collide with earth and declined them? Did another meteorite collide with earth 330 million years ago and declined Eogyrinus? Did the collision of meteorite, about 250 million years ago caused big insects to decline? In this case how we can explain the decline of Lepidodendrales plant, Calamitales and giant tree ferns. Did they was destroyed when a big meteorite collide the earth 300 million years ago. The decline of Macropustion and big Diprotodon in Australia, and decline of the awful bird, Phorohacos, which had a head as big as a horse's and length of 3/6m and big beak of 60cm, about 40 million years ago was because of the collision of meteorite? Did the decline of giant Dinornis maximus and Aepyornis maximus in these years was because of the collision of the big meteorite?

All of these show that, such a theory can not explain declines animals during the long years. But there is another question, which shows the voidance of this theory! The question is that: assume that the big meteorite collide the earth 65 million years ago, and declined the big dinosaurs, why the remained reptiles couldn�t get bigger. The earliest reptiles, which were amphibious, were very small, but they could get bigger and made the dinosaurs. With the collision of didn't meteorite, dinosaurs was destroyed, but some of small reptiles survived. Why they make bigger animals!

Then, it becomes clear that, the factor, which caused them to decline, is still remained and doesn�t allow big reptiles to get bigger.

So, the collision of the big meteorite with earth and the formation of dust and smoke in atmosphere can not be supposed as the factor of dinosaurs' decline, because, that collision occurred at that time and the effect of dust and smoke have been disappeared and there was no later effect on animals.

Although the theory of the collision of the big meteorite and the formation of dust and smoke can not explain of the animals, but, at the same time, scientists hadn't made a mistake by suggesting this theory, in fact they are close to reality. Because in fact, decline of animals is some how related to meteorites, but not in a way that Luis Alvarez and his son explain.

The theory of the increasing of the gravity says that the fall of meteorites in long periods of time caused the gradual increase of earth, and by increasing of the gravity the ability of blood system of these animals decreased gradually. So those animals which had weaker blood system become smaller or declined. For this reason, after decline of dinosaurs, other reptiles couldn't get bigger, but small mammals which get stronger blood system were able to get their bodies bigger and made the big mammals of 20 million years ago. So, we see that, the scientists are not wrong, and they are right in thinking meteorites as an important factor in this phenomenon. But in the way of explaining and the quality of the extion of the meteorites, they are wrong. Scientists are looking for a big meteorite, which have been able to from such great dust and smoke on earth. But as we know it is not necessary to find a big meteorite, and small meteorites can also increase the gravity provided that their number is large.

People, who accept the theory of the collision of a big meteorite with earth, think that by revivaling the existing genes in the remained eggs of dinosaurs they can rebuild them, or by using the sperms of frozen Mammoth they can rebuild them. They think that the decline factor, which was the big meteorite, collided at the time and everything is finished, and they can form new giant animals. These scientist are unaware of the earth which they put their foots on it, and they don't as far the gravity of earth is like the gravity this time, it is impossible to revival such giant animals. Perhaps this is possible in Moon, the gravity of which is 1/6 of that of the earth.

Ramin amir mardfar
.........................................

- Why are there then still some large animals?

Dominique Adriaens,
.................................

Because their circulatory systems have been develop.

Ramin

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/the_graph_of_land_animals__size_during_the_time.jpg

Ramin
...............................................................

- If true, it should also be reflected in the structural differences in plants during that period and the plants now (and I don�t just mean size)

Dominique Adriaens,
....................................

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap1-3page.html

Plants, other witnesses for the increases of gravity
 

We knew that, the size of animal species in every class has become smaller from past up today, and we justified this phenomenon with theory of the increase of gravity. We know the other than animals; other creatures are living plant's range, on the earth.
If the assumptions about increase of gravity, are true, we most observe its effects on from past up to day. In order to transfer the water and other necessary materials, plants have a system to transfer these materials, which is a like the blood system of animals. In plant's bodies, the root, which is like the heart of heart of animals, takes the water and other materials upwards, vascular system which are like blood vessels in animals, lead the water and materials to upper organs of plants. As we saw in animals, the evolution of transferring system in plants is not at the same degree. Among the plants there are primitive and evoluted classes. There is a question that; is the direct relationship between the strength of transferring system and the size of body, true in plants too? To answer the question, it is better to classify the degree of the evolution of transferring system of today's plant classes.
The group of angiosperms has the most advanced transferring system. Then there are gymnosperms which have more advanced transferring system. Then ferns have relatively strong root and vascular system. The group of horsetails has weak and primary roots and vascular system, then there are lycopodiales, which have the most primary roots and vascular system, and at the end there are bryophyta which almost lack this system.
Now, let's compare the size of body between these groups. The largest living plant on the earth is Giant sequoia, which belongs to angiosperms (the most strong transferring system.)
All plants which we see as tall trees in forests and other parts of earth, belong to the groups of angiosperms and gymnosperms that is they have strong transferring system! Ferns are next group, which have large sizes. Horsetails are able only to reach to 1 meter and lycopodials are smaller than they are, and at the end there are bryophyta, which grow crawling on the earth, or on other plants. So, we see that the direct relationship between the strength of transferring system and the size of body is true about the plants. This is a normal situation, because, it needs to overcome the gravity to transfer the water and materials to high parts and leaves of plants, and it is clear that, the stranger the pump system and leading system, the more the distance of transmission, so the plant will be able to transfer the water and materials to high parts, and if this system week, the plant had to shorten is height

Could the plants, which have more primary transferring system and small sizes, larger their sizes in the past? If the answer is <<yes>>, we can hope that our assumption is true. So we study about the fossils of pervious plants. The remaining traces on the cools of carbonifer period (330 millions years ago), draws the scientific' attention. There are the traces of giant Lepidodendrals and giant kalamitals, the heights of some Lepidodendrals reach to 34.2m and the diameter of them reached to 1.8m, and the height of giant horsetails reached to 15m or more. And we also observe the traces of tree and tall ferns in these fossils. So it is clear that the answer of the question is <<yes>>, that is the pervious plants with weak transferring system, were able to larger their sizes, but they can't do this now, because the gravity was less than today, and they were able to overcome it. So the plants are other witnesses of gravity from past up to day.

 
Ramin
....................................

- Etc, etc, etc, etc

Dominique Adriaens,
���������

? ? ? ?

Ramin
���������.

Dear Dominique,

I've expressed initials of my theorem in 1986.
I sent my first article to different associations of zoology, paleontology, and geology in different countries such as London Zoology Association. My first article was published by "Ettelaate Elmi" magazine in 1996.Then my other fifteen articles was published there.
My first book consisting a collection of these articles was printed and published in 2000.I published translation of my articles on a website in 2001 and on Dec.2001 I created Paleogravity group in Yahoo Groups for discussions on this respect.
Before my book has been printed I asked related questions from myself and wrote their answer in my book.
Many people has discussed with me about this theorem but no one has been able to ask a new question except those in my book.

Ramin
����������.

Dear Ramin,

Don�t have time to respond now (I�m at a meeting in Boston), and won�t have time to read your book in the near future either, I�m afraid. If I have time the next weeks, I�ll try to respond to the �etc, etc, etc�.

Best
Dominique
�����������