Gravity killed the dinosaurs

[Bohm2]

We now have a good explanation for how this new matter is being generated. It's called pair production, and has been known since the 1930's.

There is no evidence that pair production can explain the growth required by the EE model. If there is, provide a link to any peer-reviewed scientific papers. I've seen estimated calculations using pair production but even with an unrealistically high transformation from solar neutrinos into electron-positron pairs, the mass production rate is way too insignificant to account for the amount that the earth expansion model requires. And this is a best case scenario as such a process in the earth's core, is at best, highly unlikely. If you disagree, then provide some peer-reviewed papers suggesting otherwise.

[DarwinX]

We now have a good explanation for how this new matter is being generated. It's called pair production, and has been known since the 1930's.

There is no evidence that pair production can explain the growth required by the EE model. If there is, provide a link to any peer-reviewed scientific papers. I've seen estimated calculations using pair production but even with an unrealistically high transformation from solar neutrinos into electron-positron pairs, the mass production rate is way too insignificant to account for the amount that the earth expansion model requires. And this is a best case scenario as such a process in the earth's core, is at best, highly unlikely. If you disagree, then provide some peer-reviewed papers suggesting otherwise.

++++++0


DarwinX Definition of peer review system -

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions. A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly. A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.

I would suggest that you look through the entire collection of videos by Robert Distiniti and by the time that you get to the last video you may have acquired a few extra IQ points.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v