Be realist, you can't understand why convergence does not imply a net reduction of surface despite exhaustive explanations and illustrations (as those above).
The conclusion is that all of this is way over your understanding abilities.
I can understand that something is balanced by something else. I know the difference between a local divergence, and the net change at lage scale. However, I see several issues (on your side) in this thread.
The first issue is that you claimed there are observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model, next I requested observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model, next you answered by measurement of Earth expansion which, as far as I understand, use an EE model.
The second issue is:
Here you go:
These measurements of the ocean floor growth are based on the isochrons data available at earthbyte.org
As far as I know, those measurement of the ocean floor surface are using the assumption/idea/fact/whatever that subduction and convergence does not exist or are negligible, no Earth lithosphere disapear, every seafloor which was in the past is still observable. If this an incorrect understanding, please tell me.
How do EE proponents explain the non-negligible seafloor subduction, and the non-negligible convergence between a and b, in the following diagram?
This figure illustrates how convergence is possible on a growing Earth.
On one hand, convergence doesn't append and seafloor never disapear. On the other hand, convergence does append and seafloor disapear.
The third issue is you stating that
there is no net reduction of surface along active margins despite the convergence.
as if every
convergent boundary on Earth has on his side ("along"), a few km away, not more, a back-arc extension which balance all the convergence. Is that so?
The fourth issue is that you avoid questions, you avoid giving clear and explicit descriptions, explanations, demonstrations, of your EE model, of your EE theories.
Sorry, but I do not believe you.
I don't care about that. But you conveniently forgot to quote and answer to the questions I asked you in the same §.
And you know perfectly that Wu et al did exclude every geodetic stations located in active tectonic regions, and did not use horizontal displacement to model the growth. The opposite of what should have been done.
I don't care about that either. As I
previously wrote
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.