Regarding Jeff Ogrisseg's Nov. 22 article "Our growing Earth?" and related articles: I am extremely disappointed in The Japan Times' decision to run a nearly two-page spread on the scientifically bereft growing Earth hypothesis. Ogrisseg's credulous account of this hypothesis uses the same old tired technique wielded by supporters of intelligent design and the antivaccination crowd: Take an issue that has solid scientific support, find a few people who disagree and announce that there is a "controversy" in the scientific community.
There is no controversy. The vast majority of geologists and geophysicists agree that plate tectonics is the mechanism by which the surface of Earth shapes itself. Legions of scientists worldwide have tested it and found evidence that it accurately describes what we see and predicts future events — exactly what a good scientific hypothesis should do. While science doesn't yet know everything about how Earth works, there are mountains of evidence — literally — that support plate tectonics.
Richard Fortey's book "Earth: An Intimate History" is excellent reading on this subject. The growing Earth theory, on the other hand, predicts nothing and its explanations are dubious at best. It cannot even answer what should be its most central question: Where is all this new mass coming from?
Subatomic pair production won't work, as the electrons and positrons it produces exist only a very short time before they annihilate themselves. I do not blame Ogrisseg for being interested in a theory that upsets the dominant paradigm. It's shiny and different, and that attracts an inquiring mind. But anytime one encounters a new hypothesis, one must always ask: Where is the evidence?