I was reading Velikovsky yesterday and he made the remarkable statement that fossilised remains of Indigenous Americans have been found in so-called "Pleistocene" geological layers in Florida, including a plethora of remains of the selfsame age's exinct mega-fauna
. Dating of the human remains in light of manufactured artefacts found at the scene (Vero and Melbourne, Florida) placed them around the same time as 2,000-1,000 BCE indigenous settlement of that American penninsula.
Velikovsky wrote:There is no proper way out of this dilemma, other than the assumption that now extinct animals still existed in historical times and that the catastrophe which overwhelmed man and animals and annihilated numerous species occurred in the second or first millennium before the present era.
The geologists are right: the human remains and artifacts of Vero and Melbourne in Florida are of the same age as the fossils of the extinct animals.
The anthropologists are equally right: the human remains and artifacts are of the second or first millennium before the present era.
What follows? It follows that the extinct animals belonged to the recent past. It follows also that some paroxysm of nature heaped together these assemblages; the same paroxysm of nature may have destroyed numerous
species so that they became extinct.
According to this particular avenue of evidence, the "Pleistocene" ended only ~3000 years ago. The "Younger Dryas" megafauna were still on earth when a sudden cataclysm wiped them off the American continent, alongside much of its human denizens, only ~3,000-4,000 years ago. And that cataclysm is not limited to the USA, either. It was a worldwide event.
Getting back on topic to the OP: the earth's apparent size, if it has changed, could change rapidly under certain conditions (namely, extraterrestrial interference by a passing agent, be it Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, or whatever). Millions of years are not required, which is one of Velikovsky's main points. Catastrophic geological forces occur quickly in a matter of hours, days or at most months, especially when precipitated by earth's primary planetary antagonists of the past, and leave scars for millennia to come. We can only look at the scars. We cannot repeat the cataclysmic events that brought them about, but we can and should hypothesise the forces that indeed did so. This is where Velikovsky remains a pioneer in the field, even if some of his conclusions are no longer valid and in spite of criticism of his 'cherry-picking' style of evidence.
I think some consideration regarding the earth's apparent volume and its relationship to charge needs to be made. When earth was a sattellite of Saturn, was it smaller? How much smaller? How would you determine how much smaller it was? And when it entered the sun's electrical domain (plasmasheath) alongside the other planets in the recent past, how much bigger did it (or could it) have grown? Were there periods of fluctuation in this apparent size when (I hypthesise) the Saturnian system broke up around the time of the Exodus, or during the violent reigns of Venus and Mars? Lastly, can such expansion-retraction of a spherical (hollow?) rocky body responding to alterations in charge potential be simulated in laboratory conditions?
 Earth in Upheaval
, pp. 151-153
 Ibid, 153.