Obvious Leo wrote:Aren't you overlooking the fact that in pair production the pair being produced are the particle and its anti-particle. What mechanism do you propose which would prevent them from annihilating each other, as they almost immediately do in the cloud chamber? In the hypothetical Hawking radiation model this is prevented by the tidal forces of a black hole but such forces will be many orders of magnitude too small inside a planetary body. I realise it's a shame to allow the facts to stuff up a good story but these are not trivial considerations.
I'll ask around and see what its proponents say about this. But there is plenty of evidence that planets and moons grow. Pair production is merely what most adherents of this idea are currently proposing to explain new mass, since this is currently the strongest objection to their ideas.
Steve3007 wrote: Anyway, some people might say that they're just arranging the interpretation of the theory so as not to violate the laws of conservation of mass/energy. In a sense, they're right. But that's what extrapolation from known models to try to make predictions of as-yet-unperformed observations is all about. You assume that the most well established parts of the model (such as mass/energy conversation) will not be violated, and see what is predicted to happen - see how the rest of the model behaves with those constraints.
We are well aware that modern science considers the law of conservation of mass/energy to be absolute and universal. However, we have to oppose that view because we see too much evidence of growing planets and moons. Our position is that all of the evidence in favor of growing planets and their moons cannot be discarded just because it violates this one "law". We think that this "law" only applies to local conditions, which were always the conditions in which it was formulated. The law of conservation of mass/energy is indeed generally true, but it does not apply in the extreme conditions which we find in the cores of large cosmic bodies, where the high energy created by gravity, compression and extreme density allow new matter/mass to be generated.
ObviousLeo wrote: Back to Jupiter turning into a star. How long should we need to wait?
It's not guaranteed. The growth of planets can only proceed given certain favorable conditions, so whether or not Jupiter will continue to grow and eventually become a Star is not known. But planetary changes such as this obviously occur over several hundred million, if not a few billion or so, years.
Steve3007 wrote: I do seriously think, though, that fringe theories such as "Expanding Earth" are still interesting if only because of the insights that they might give into the way different people think, and attempt to make sense of the world. Obviously following through the logical consequences of the idea that the Earth has been expanding and "that's why dinosaurs were really big" leads to most of physics having to be thrown out. Most people stop there and think "OK, I guess plate tectonics works best" but some, like our very interesting case study DarwinX, go merrily ahead and do indeed throw it all out (without actually looking at what it says first) because doing so fits some pre-existing suspicions that they had about people. So there are interesting psychological insights to be had.
Actually, a smaller Earth and a lower g-force is a far more logical and simple explanation for the dinosaurs large size than the idea of more oxygen in the atmosphere. "Throwing out" most of physics in favor of a
new general model should not seem like such a radical idea given the cosmological "model" (most of the Universe is "dark", unknown) which modern physics has given us. Obviously there is something very serious missing in modern physics, as any mediocre philosopher could plainly see, and perhaps some of them, among others, are an absolute and universal fixed energy/mass, and a planet in which continents float around as if they were chunks of ice on water.
