Earth Expansion has already been "confirmed", but alas at a slow rate ... but still it is expanding. Expanding by one hair a year, amounts to a couple of moon volumes, over earths age ...
So you subscibe to an expanding earth, but not Maxlows thesis?
Now, for all this science here ... it's not particularly scientific. Earth expansion never had to have any magic increase of matter. That is just bogus. If you observe lava, as it comes form the earth ... you will notice that this lava is filled with microscopic gas bubbles, that are released into the atmosphere as it comes out. These bubbles are from the plasma inside the earth ... lava, behaves like yeasted bread dough ... it expands as the matter cools, and the liquified magnetic plasma wants to return to it's gaseous state.
Or, they're volatile components that remained in solution under pressure, and came out of solution as the pressure was reduced.
Concerning gravity, the gravity as you experience it here, is surface gravity. It is the plasma inside the earth, and it's core, that make up the mass. The crust, makes up very little of the mass. If the crust thins out, then gravity will increase ... irrespective of the earth growing or not, expanding in mass, or not.
This makes little, or no sense.
And rationally, there is one major flaw with Plate Tectonics. And that is subduction. It isn't possible, as defined by plate tectonics. It doesn't matter how many scientists put their names behind this perpetual machine, it's still non-achievable, to push, pull or otherwise in vast numbers, put the crust inside that immensely dense magnetic plasma beneath. We wouldn't be floating on top, if it was.
Only when we look out in the real world, we fnd that the denisty of oceanic crust we find it increases as it cools with age, and after approximately 50MA it's dense enough to sink.
Like many advocates of expanding earth tectonics, you seem to have some very old ideas about how plate tectonics works.
This might be of some value to you (and others)
Plate Tectonics: Geological Aspects; Prof. J. Tarney
And concerning that the continents are bumping and crashing into each other, slowly forming the ends so they fit. Is literally preposterous. Think about it, if the continents are bumping they would randomly bump. It's not like a car is trying to parallel park. It's like a tivoli electrical car ride ... everyone is bumping into everyone, and the continents wouldn't fit anywhere. Unless you are suggesting there is some sort of "mind" or "mechanism" at the helm, steering us, similarly like a human being steering the car at a parking lot.
This is wrong - if the continents were bumping about randomly then the match on any edge would be with its most recent collision.
This isn't theology, what you wan't to believe isn't relevant either. That isn't science. You must OBSERVE and then explain what you observe. There is no observation that observes the continents moving about in the manner suggested ... in fact, all the continents are firmly fittet together, with tens to hundred kilometer thick crust. The motion of the continents as recorded, is not in contrast with plate tectonics. Although it is yet too early to determine, if they support Earth Expansion either. The only observation made, is that new material is created at the ocean floor. And second, that all the continents fit together on a smaller globe.
You forgot the observations that we have made that match the predictions made by subduction theories.
Subduction denialism part 1 - a rather well written blog piece from 2008 that references a former poster from this forum.
These are only observations, fact in question. Plate tectonics, is a theory that was rejected, and later accepted because the newer theory of Earth Expansion could not be accepted. So the alternative, and previously rejected theory, was accepted.
No, expanding earth tectonics was rejected because it failed to account for all of the evidence, and there was a body of evidence against it, things such as tidalites and consequences of orbital mechanics.
The notion of the continents fittet across the atlantic, was obvious very early on. Sometime in the 19th century, if my recollection is correct. But it wasn't until the 20th century, that a model of a globe which fittet the continents over the pacific as well, was made.
However, the most important point of all. Is that a non-contant earth is an extremely scary thought to many.
The thought of an expanding earth scares nobody, there is simply no evidence to support it at the exclusion of an earth of constant radius, and a substantial body of evidence supporting an earth of expanding radius.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, in his piece 'Storm':
If you show me that, [it] works then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling
'It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
...
You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock.”
If I do not share your opinion, it is not that I don't understand it, it is not that I feel some bordering on spiritual need to adhere to what I already know, it is simply that I have yet to be convinced by any evidence that you have presented.