Nick C. notes that EU does not require ultra-dense objects whether white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes.
Regarding Larson's RS, it clearly rejects the latter two kinds of objects as non-existent. But white dwarfs and some other classes of objects with ultra-high
apparent density really exist - the question between Larson and mainstream theories is in the understanding of their nature and properties. Larson's claim as to the nature of white dwarfs is based on his premise that time and space are reciprocal entities - each therefore "progresses" and each is three dimensional. One product of a supernova explosion expands in space - so that the the object which then condenses is a star in which there is a large amount of empty space between the atoms, namely a red giant star which may have a mass comparable to our own sun and a diameter comparable to that of the solar system. The other product of the supernova, mostly composed of iron-rich materials near the center of the star, expands into three dimensional time due it its ultra-high speeds. It has a lot of "empty time" between its atoms. More time is equivalent to less space, and since we receive our information through space, we observe densities in these objects that appear to be fantastically high. Larson stressed that these are appearances, however, saying that matter is never actually far from the densities that we find in ordinary matter.
Both types of stars contract toward the main sequence - the contraction of the dwarf appearing to us as expansion in space.
The way Larson relates this to planetary systems is that when a Type II supernova (which is based on an ionization or age limit, rather than a mass or temperature limit, as in the case of Type I), the stars which undergo such an explosion can be of any size. Some of them are therefore not large enough to form a red giant-white dwarf pair, and the component that would have been a white dwarf instead becomes a planetary system.
As to how this might relate to the growing earth hypothesis, I quote two writers on RS:
First, Ronald Satz (the Unmysterious Universe, 1971, p. 63):
"Just as pulsars and white dwarfs expand under the influence of gravitation in the time region, so do planets and satellites - but on a much smaller scale. Eventually gravitational equilibrium is reached (as now exists in our solar system), and the planets and satellites grow only by accretion. Estimated to be 1000 tons a day on earth, such accretion could eventually transform the landscape."
Second, Arnold D. Studtmann (Toward a Unified Cosmological Physics: The Reciprocal System of D.B. Larson, PhD dissertation, National Graduate School, 1979, pp 389-390):
"A highly tentative conjecture regarding planetary structure is submitted for further consideration. There seems to be considerable evidence that Earth has been slowly expanding over a long period of time. This evidence, as noted, has been adduced by some students of general relativity in support of the notion that the universal gravitational constant G is diminishing in accord with Dirac's hypothesis. However, according to Larson's theory, the Type B [iron-rich] material in the earth's core had its origin in that part of the supernova which explodes in time. Subsequent gravitational collapse in time is equivalent to expansion in space. If such expansion has not yet terminated by the time planetary accretion is essentially complete, then it is conceivable that planetary expansion may be manifesting itself as further continental separation, rifts in the ocean floor, etc. One concedes the possibility of other explanations for this phenomenon, however.
I myself am inclined to think that this "contraction in time" phenomenon, if it exists, would not explain either the evidence for earth expansion or for increasing earth mass. For one thing, white dwarfs appear to be so dense because of their apparently strong gravity (indicated by binary relations) in comparison with their apparent volume. That in itself does not speak to the issue of their
surface gravity, however. Furthermore if this effect alone were supposed to explain the growing earth evidence, as StevenO suggests, it would not account for why that evidence seems to show long eons of very slow growth, which now seems to be following an exponential pattern. (See Dr. James Maxlow's lecture here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0 ).
Larson, himself described a process of "atom building" - by which atoms ejected by the cosmic sector of the universe - the cosmic rays - gradually break down to zero-mass particles and then material particles of increasing mass. Those zero-mass particles constantly enter the earth and by some means the atom building process goes on. In his Neglected Facts of Science (1982, p 124), Larson characterized the evidence as follows:
"The factual information thus far available does not define the nature of the process by which the heavier elements are built up, except that it requires this process to be one that operates continuously throughout the existence of matter in the material sector. This rules out processes such as the currently favored high temperature reactions in the central regions of the stars, and it suggests some kind of a capture process. Neutrons are readily absorbed under almost any conditions, and may play the dominant role. For present purposes, however, all that we need to know is that such a process exists, a fact that is demonstrated by the observed results."
Larson pursued a more theoretically motivated analysis of the issue in Nothing but Motion (1979) and Basic Properties of Matter (1988). I leave what he had to say for another time.
(Note that Larson predicted massless neutrons as well as the massed variety.)
