Nick Hoffman
Now I've read the article
Wed Jul 4 22:06:57 2001

it's total crap. ('scuse my French)

[is the data on coral rings out-dated? the most recent source he gives is in the 1970s]

The article predicts that the Moon should be approaching the Earth by some 1.5 cm/year, yet integrated Lunar Laser ranging from the Apollo era to the present day shows that the Moon is RECEDING from the Earth by 3 cm/yr.

[which oddly enough he mentioned early on. Are you sure he's predicting that??? One thing he seems totally ignorant of is detailed earth-moon models that totally eliminate the need for jiggery-pokery with gravity to solve the "recent moon problem".]

The article fails to explain the nature and origin of the Moon in a way consistent with observed facts like the bulk composition and isotopic ratios of the Moon that show it was once essentially part of the Earth.

[looks like that area totally passed him by]

The article is internally inconsistent, and uses values derived from a non-varying G model to feed into a varying-G model in an inappropriate way.

[knew I should've checked the maths... just wanted to post it so people could have a look.]

As further clues to its crankiness, it is a single author paper (Mea Culpa, in passing). It's references are generally way out of date, or refer to other single-author papers. In short, it's way on the wrong side of flakey.

[hey it's been a while since anyone has tried to vary G in a big way.]

Correction, come about page 9 it is EXTREMELY on the lunatic side of looney when it starts talking about heating the earth's ocean by frictional processes. This is WRONG with capitals.

[whatever happened to radioactivity??? Yeah he's really begging for credibility when he winds up with the Earth forming at 53 K]

I don't see this paper surviving peer review...

[indeed.... but it was worth a look - just how fast was the palaeo-earth spinning? I've heard 6 - 7 hrs and then 12 - 14... what seems plausible to you?]

Adam