OK, but in Miles work, you have to carefully distinguish between unified field, macro-gravity (what we actually measure) and acceleration, solo-gravity (which is macro-gravity minus the charge field). In his UFT, mass is assigned to the charge field component, not the gravitational component. In the quote above, he explicitly ties the mass to the density of the charge field. So while macro-gravity is dependent on mass due to the inclusion of the charge field in the current equations, Miles' expression of solo-gravity is dependent on radius alone. Since the charge field works in vector opposition to the solo gravity field, a denser charge field will result in more charge field flux emitted from the surface of any body, which will LOWER the measured macro-gravity unified field.

 

This is fleshed out more fully in his paper, "The Moon Gives Up a Secret" where he shows that macro gravity is more proportional to radius than mass. Since the moon's radius is much smaller than earth's, on the surface you are in a denser charge field which offsets solo-gravity more even the mass is less as well. This is clearly seen when comparing the gravity and mass differentials. Why is the gravity of the moon 1/6th of the earth's when the mass is something like 1/81? Denser charge field due to smaller radius, that's why. 

 

There are at least two ways to lower macro gravity: 1) increase the ambient charge field for more through-put and cancellation of solo-gravity, or 2) decrease the radius of the body in question. Although I don't discout the possibility that the earth may have increased in size, I think a Saturnian orbit with a denser ambient charge field is an obvious explanation for gigantism. To me, the biological requirements for gigantism demand less gravity, not more.