Do you really prefer an argument of authority rather than examining evidence yourself?
No.
Please notice that I do not see you as an authority, and I have not seen any evidence that Earth is expanding, so either way (argument of authority and convincing evidence), I do not trust your claim that "Earth expansion [...] is observed!".
Do you demand that people acknowledge Earth expansion, acknowledge that Earth is expanding, acknowledge that "Earth expansion [...] is observed", as a requirement to discuss EET with you?
If not, then go back to figure page 4 in post 72 for a fresh start.
Let see:
(I can't quote the IMG due to the young of my account)
A colorfull diagramm. I fail to see how this is an observation of Earth expansion, or a satelite view of Earth expansion, or a testimony of someone who observed Earth expansion.
If doi:10.1029/2011GL047450 is right, then we have 1 measurement of not increase of Earth radius vs 0 measurement of increase of Earth radius.
If your criticism is right, then doi:10.1029/2011GL047450 is not a reliable to measure a not increase of Earth radius, so we have 0 measurement of not increase of Earth radius vs 0 measurement of increase of Earth radius.
In both case, we have 0 (zero) measurement of increase of Earth radius.
There must have been another study somewhere for the 18mm
You might think about
Robaudo, S., and C. G. A. Harrison (1993), Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data, in Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodyn. Ser., vol. 23, edited by D. E. Smith and D. L. Turcotte, pp. 51–71, doi:10.1029/GD023p0051, AGU, Washington, D. C.
It therefore seems reasonable to restrict the vertical motions to be zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average of 18mm/yr.
James Maxlow said:
The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out.
they decided to restrict vertical motion "to be zero" for the remainder of their study.
As far as I know, NASA has measured no increase of 18 mm/year.
0.1 mm /year => 1 meter in 10,000 years or 100 Km in a billion years
so doesn't seem to be enough, but if it was 1.0 mm per year it would more than account for EE theory. 1000 km in a billion years is quite significant.
No. EET expect 10 to 22 mm/year in order to balance the seafloor spreading/lithospheric accretion at oceanic ridge (because EET assume no subduction).
So even if it was 0.2mm/year or 200 km/billion years multiply that by 4.5 billion years you get close to 1000 kms.
To go back to an Earth with 64% of it's current linear dimensions we need a reduction of around 2300 km over the 4.5 billion years. [...] So even with these very small changes in the radius of the Earth it comes to be very close to enough expansion to account for the EET.
No. Expanding Earth Theory assume no subduction (see for example Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe, 1988, chapter 13 The Subduction Myth). In order to balance seafloor youngest that 200 million years old (see map at ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html), EET need an Earth with 64% of it's current radius 200 My ago.
