The Equatorial Bulge

In the next of his posts on the Inflating Earth model, Tim Cullen turns to the equatorial bulge – how does this feature fit into the Expanding Earth hypothesis – see http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/the-inflating-earth-equatorial…

The bulge is nearly 43km in height and is due to the centifrugal force of Earth's rotation, in that a rotating body tends to form an oblate sphere rather than a sphere. The additional mass at the bulge implies, or so he says, Newtonian gravity is stronger around the equator. Actually, this flies in the face of the mainstream gravity models which are based upon the idea gravity is stronger at the Poles. He then provides us with some gravity maps of the world from http://geodesy.curtin.edu.au/research/models/ … and these confirm the role of gravity is strongest nearest the Poles.

Cullen continues by claiming the continental land masses, via the topography of South America, Africa and Australia, have the bulge too (between 5 and 10km in height) formed into their crustal structure. Africa, for example, has a dome raised 10km above the equator, tapering of the N and the S of the equator. In a reconstruction of Pangaea these continental bulges do not conform with one another. He says the Earth was spinning on its side during Pangaea, with one half of it in continuous sunlight. To reinforce his argument he says the geographical distribution of humans by skin colour confirms this. Basically, he is saying that Pangaea broke up within the timeline of human history (not necessarily that of modern humans). This is strong stuff to digest and get your head around. In addition, the Earth has inflated as Pangaea broke apart, in the timeline of human history, creating the modern equatorial bulge in the process.