Towards the end of the "Expanding Earth Video" topic the subject was raised of whether Mars has also expanded and what could that mean for the possibility of finding evidence of past or present life on Mars. Because many people might be interested in this topic, yet might not have read the previous discussion, I thought it would be good to open a topic on Mars specifically. For those people, I should at least give a few arguments on why some think the Earth has expanded:

(1) It was realized by Hilgenberg, Carey and others that the continents can form a completely interlocking cover over the whole globe if the early radius of the Earth was 50-60 per cent of the present radius. Such perfect matching of continents is unlikely to have arisen by chance. Some proponents of the theory favour slow expansion (since the Earth was formed), others fast expansion (since about 200-300 million years ago) and others a combination of the two.

(2) While evidence for seafloor spreading is definite and measurable, the compensating process of subduction in the plate tectonics theory is largely conjectural. There is no 'smoking gun' of subduction.

(3) The sea floor is in all places not older than 200 million years or so. If sea floors were continually being formed for billions of years, as suggested in the plate tectonics theory, and if older sea floors were to disappear by subduction, one would expect to find here and there relics of older sea floors billions of years old. These have not been found. (This general observation tends to support the fast expansion theory of Carey and others).

(4) If the ocean basins formed relatively late in Earth's evolution through expansion, and if the amount of water on the Earth has stayed roughly constant, then the continents would gradually have become more and more exposed over time as water drained into the ocean basins. Fossil evidence supports this general trend.

(5) The expanding earth theory explains why the continents are very even in thickness. Plate tectonics has no explanation for this.

Many other points were mentioned in the previous thread, both for and against the expanding Earth theory. There is also a vast literature on the subject.

There is some pretty suggestive evidence that Mars like Earth has expanded. For some basic facts on Mars see http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Mars.html
The southern half of Mars is the ancient "highlands" region, raised about 1-4 km above the mean level of the planet. The northern half is the much younger "lowlands". The highlands show much more cratering than the lowlands, which is consistent with the lowlands being relatively newer crust analogous to Earth's ocean crust. Except for the absence of liquid water the configuration is not unlike the continent-ocean pattern of the Earth. There is even a likely spreading centre in the lowlands region in the Tharsis ridge, as well as canyons which could stand in for Earth's ocean trenches. I don't know if there are 'shelves' analogous to the continental shelves on Earth, or if the 'coastlines' fit together on Mars like they do on Earth.

Mars could be an interesting 'lab' to prove the reality of subduction, since the absence of ocean water there makes observations in some ways easier. (Of course, plate tectonics supporters will take the absence of subduction on Mars as evidence that Mars does not have plate tectonics!)

Many recent reports have dealt with evidence of rainfall on early Mars. In the June 6 issue of Science there is a story "Running Water Eroded a Frigid Early Mars" by Richard Kerr, stating that computer simulations of rain falling on Mars' surface seem to produce patterns of runoff similar to what is actually seen. Some additional links on this topic were given at the end of the Expanding Earth Video thread. See also

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...ihealth-03.asp

http://northonline.sccd.ctc.edu/jmasura/earlymars.htm

Could a warm early Mars be connected to Mars expansion? As with the Earth it would be nice to know what caused its expansion. One possible cause of expansion is a secular decrease in G. Suppose that 4 billion years ago the radius of Mars was only 60 per cent of its present value, or 2,038 km. Suppose that G at that time was about 1.4 times the present value. Assuming that there was no increase in the mass of Mars (= 6.4 x 10^23 kg), Mars' surface gravity 4 billion years ago would have been

g = GM/R^2 = 14.4 m/sec^2 .

This is even greater than Earth's present surface gravity of 9.8 m/sec^2.

As discussed earlier, the solar luminosity (SL) would also have been greater if G was greater. A hotter Sun could have made rain on Mars a possibility. The problem is that in Dirac's decreasing G hypothesis, for instance, the increase in SL seems to be too great. Yet this could be offset somewhat if SL were reduced according to present solar models. (These models suggest that the luminosity of the early Sun was 30 per cent less than today, and so the existence of other evidence indicative of a warmer Earth back then leads to the 'faint young Sun paradox')

Finally, it is also reasonable to suppose that Mars at least started off with an atmosphere. If the Earth's atmosphere arose secondarily (e.g., by comets), then Mars would also have received these same gases. Whatever atmosphere Mars had could have easily been retained when Mars was smaller, due to its higher surface gravity . Taken together, the evidence for rainfall on early Mars could be considered as consistent with a decreasing G scenario.

The possibility for life evolving on ancient Mars is then considerably bolstered in decreasing G scenarios, since all the necessary elements would have been there: atmosphere, liquid water, ample sunlight, plus reduced compounds emitted volcanically. Either chemoautotrophic or photoautotrophic models might be entertained. Even in expanding Mars scenarios with expansion occurring at constant G and constant mass, the surface gravity would have been greater at earlier stages and this alone could have been significant for life.

Some of the points I mention were thoroughly debated in the EE Video topic. I raise them again not to antagonize anyone, but merely to introduce the topic to Mars researchers and hopefully to widen the debate.

[(1) It was realized by Hilgenberg, Carey and others that the continents can form a completely interlocking cover over the whole globe if the early radius of the Earth was 50-60 per cent of the present radius]

Umm what does Australia lock into?

2) While evidence for seafloor spreading is definite and measurable, the compensating process of subduction in the plate tectonics theory is largely conjectural. There is no 'smoking gun' of subduction.
]

I'm sure the people of such wonderfull places as New Zealand and Chile would feel safer in their homes, by your rebuttal.

There is no doubt early Mars had an atmosphere. But you can not have you cake and eat it by saying Mars expansion caused the air to thin. Why are we not seeing the same phenomena on Earth. Atmospheric pressure has not changed in the five hundred years since it was first measured.

Your falling sea level argument wont hold water either. In no place on Earth is there evidence of exposed ocean floor. Only shallow sea area, such as central Australia are exposed.

Consenus about Mars is the planet has actually slightly shrunk since formation. With the exception of the Thalis bulge - home of the great volcanoes - most of the major valleys have been created by the planets crust wrinkling as time went on.

Tectonic activity never got started on Mars. Olympus Mons and other sites show this without question.

If all planet expand, why doesn't Venus show signs of expansion? Mercury? Why wouldn't the terrestial planets be the same size, if they are the same age? I'm not sure if Venus is considered one but Mars is a geologically dead planet. There isn't much activity going on what so ever.

You are likely referring to the positions of the continents at the start of the video in the Expanding Earth Video topic. As was discussed in that topic, the positions which appear there are at odds with most representations in the expanding Earth theory (e.g., Vogel, Carey).

I suggest we are seeing the same phenomenon on Earth. However, it may not be that a short period of 500 years would be able to display the effect. In 'fast expansion' models, major expansion did not start until about 200-250 million years ago, and it may have subsequently occurred in phases. These phases may have been linked to the mass extinction events. At the same time, observed seafloor spreading indicates that some expansion is going on now, so we should be able to see a drop in pressure at some point, if our instruments were sharp enough to pick up this tiny effect. In the long run we expanding Earth (EE) models predict global cooling, due to a thinning atmosphere, rather than global warming.

I'm not following you here. What I meant was that the continents were mostly water covered prior to the first major expansion and have been gradually exposed more and more in subsequent expansions. EE does not predict exposed ocean floors.

I suggest this idea is not supported by the evidence discussed at the top.

I think Venus does show it. Most of Venus has been resurfaced with magma, just as most of the Earth has been. The planets need not have started at the same size, and expansion may have been proportional to the initial sizes (at least according to decreasing G theories). Of course the gas planets will not show evidence of expansion in their surface features, even if they have expanded.

The statement that Mars is geologically dead puzzles me. Can we say for sure there is no 'seafloor' spreading along the Tharsis ridge, for instance?

There's a weak magnetic field, indicating that there there is no movement of the piping hot magma in the mantle. I believe this also indicates that the iron core has stopped rotating. Mars is pretty dead, but the thin atmosphere keeps the surface active.

Also, with the "Expanding Earth" theory...

The Earth gains 300 tons of matter per day from meteoroids disintigrating in the atmosphere.

Also, the planets formed through the gathering of matter around stronger gravitational points. The gravity of the planet would shape the form to be spheroid, like the planets are today. Wouldn't Expanding Earth have troubles growing since there is a lot of gravity holding the matter to the center of the sphere?

Umm, no. Most of Earth has not been resurfaced with Magma. Most of the Earth's surface is sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. It is quite unlike the surface of Venus. The recent geologic histories of both planets are very different (hard to say what the early geologic history of Venus was like, as the evidence has been removed).

Yes, we can say that is true. Certainly true today, probably true in the distant past.

The large canyon complex originating near the Tharsus bulge has some curious features, and the origin of it is debated. There was some thought that perhaps it was a failed rift zone. Certainly it is related in some way to the bulge and to the magma plume(s) under the bulge, but exactly how is not determined.

The reason Venus' surface has been resurfaced is due to the atmospheric pressure. The atmosphere is a planet-covering pressure cooker. It heats up the crust until it becomes magma, and then cools down later on. The atmosphere is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Could you provide references please? I knew about the 'repaving' of Venus' surface but have not heard of the theory involving the atmosphere heating the crust. Thanks.

I might have been wrong about the atmosphere...

Discovering the Universe, 6th Edition. Comings, N & Kaufmann III, W. 2003

Venus' crust is about 300 km thick (Earth's, by comparison, is 65 km thick).

Incorrect statement on my part about the atmosphere heating up the crust. The radioactive elements heat the insulated crust to the point where it melts, and then the pent-up heat escapes and the process starts again.

Inference on my part that the atmosphere plays a part in it. It's still a pressure cooker, as probes and lander have unfortunately found out.

My bad ops:

No problem. The radioactive/internal heat melting the surface was a theory I was familiar with, I thought the involvement of the atmosphere was a new and recent theory that I hadn't heard about. I'll still see if I can find the book but I'm not hopeful - I don't live in a place with very big libraries.

It's a college textbook. Try a college bookstore. I could also send you a copy of the segment, if you'd like.

Perhaps Mars expanded in the past but the expansion then stopped, at least for now. I have the rough figure that Mars is half "lowlands" and half "highlands". If we equate the lowlands with Earth-like ocean basins and the highlands with continents, then Mars has not expanded to the same relative degree as the Earth has. On Earth the continents now form only 1/4 of the surface, indicating Earth has doubled in radius. The radius of Mars has increased only by a factor of 2^1/2 or 1.41. If so maybe Mars smaller size has something to do with the lesser expansion, or maybe its core.

Okay, I give up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, or any real understanding of geology. I better speak to some caver friends of mine, because with all this expansion going on, Jules Verne was right. The centre of the Earth is hollow. Will post photos when we get back.

Funny I used to think Creationist were a little odd....but

I'm a little bit fuzzy on the whole thing, myself. How can the Earth expand unless it creates matter? The amount of matter that collects from spacedust is a tiny fraction of an amount of the Earth's mass.

You suggest that the Earth started expanding after the planets formed and cooled down? How is this mass created? The Earth doesn't have any processes of which I'm aware of that allows it to grow. You'd have to have a hollow planet expand like a balloon. The Earth would have a much lower density is had been expanding than it does now.

It's like Johnny Cochcran and the Wookie defense!

The expanding Earth theory might seem odd, but that's mainly because it is not taught much in high school or university. But I can assure you it is a respectable theory that actually was a forerunner to plate tectonics. There was a period in the 60's where plate tectonics and EE vied for standing. Tuzo Wilson, one of the fathers of plate tectonics, actually supported EE for a while, and wrote on this in Nature. Expanding Earth theories fell by the wayside mostly because there was no clear cause of expansion. Plate tectonics (PT) also had no obvious cause, but because it did call for a change in size of the Earth it just became more acceptable. Scientifically, the evidence still supports EE. It's just not taught in school that way!

Before you discard EE completely, try reading Carey's books "The Expanding Earth" or "Theories of the Earth and Universe". Another good book is Pascual Jordan's "The Expanding Earth". Jordan favoured Dirac's idea that expansion is caused by a secular decrease in the gravitational constant G. There are also a lot of websites on EE now. Just punch in "expanding earth" in Google. The thread Expanding Earth Video also gives a sort of introduction, albeit a somewhat chaotic one.

The possible causes of EE can be briefly summed up as:

(1) expansion due to decreasing G (Dirac theory), which causes planets to elastically rebound and expand.

(2) expansion at constant mass and G, due to some sort of phase change in the core or mantle.

(3) expansion with increase of mass. This was favoured by Carey and some others. The question of course is where did the mass come from?

(4) expansion as a sort of scaled down version of the postulated universal expansion.

The proponents of expansion can't come to an agreement as to what the cause was, and so their case has not gathered much strength. But the absence of a proven mechanism for expansion does not mean that the reality of expansion has been negated. Expansion happened.

The point you made earlier about the thinning of atmospheres on expanding planets reminded me that if Mars was expanding at constant G and constant mass, it might still have been warmer in its early days due to its thicker atmosphere alone. The concentrations of greenhouse gases would have all been greater. It might thus not be critical here to postulate declining G to account for rain on early Mars.

When I mentioned that the Earth has also been resurfaced with magma, I was referring to the new ocean crust formed from basaltic magma extruded along oceanic spreading centres. You are right, though. The Earth has for the most part not been resurfaced, but rather new surface has been added.

My underlying assumption is that planetary expansion can have different forms in different cases. On the Earth it appears to be associated mainly with seafloor spreading, but basalt flooding (e.g., Siberian traps) may also have played a role. On Mars it also seems to have been mostly a process analogous to seafloor spreading. On Venus, it might have occurred through basaltic flooding. As you say, basaltic flooding removes traces of the earlier history, and so we lose some of the possible evidence of expansion on Venus (that we seem to have on Mars and Earth).

Earth has a rift zone that is over 60,000 KM long. Neither Mars nor Venus have anything like that. So, no, Mars has nothing like sea floor spreading.

If you are saying that Earth's rift zone is due to the expansion of the Earth, then you have to explain the lack on other planets. Which you still have not done, except for hand waving at the resurfacing of Venus.

Of course, you also have to explain the subduction zones of Earth, and volcanoes on the subduction zones. Which Earth has, and which Mars lacks. The Martian volcanoes all appear to be associated with plumes, with the exception of some small ones on faults around the Hellas basin, which appear to be associated with the large impact.

On Earth, there are quite distinct types of volcanoes. The rift volcanoes all produce lava that is almost exactly 50% silica. The subduction volcanoes produce lava that is up to 75% (IIRC) silica.

Expanding planets is not an accepted theory because it does not fit with what we observe. For it to displace current accepted theories, it would have to:

1. Explain observations and measurements better than the current theories.
2. Make testable predictions. Cartoons of Earth expanding is not a testable prediction.

Way back in the previous thread I tried to get you to define a prediction that the expanding planet theory makes so we can test it. Do you have one?

I think ExpErdMann admitted in a previous thread that the preponderance of modern data does not support expansion in the current time, so any tests would have to be from existing historical data.

As to ExpErdMann's five points in the OP, most of them have been dealt with. For instance, point 1) says "Such perfect matching of continents is unlikely to have arisen by chance." There is absolutely no way of determining that likelyhood, and I've mentioned before that a lot of math models would place the probability quite high. Also, you'd have to ignore an awful lot of geophysical data to say, as in point 2), "There is no 'smoking gun' of subduction."

In point 3), he said " one would expect to find here and there relics of older sea floors billions of years old. These have not been found." Someone mentioned in the previous thread that these have been found, so that point is easily dismissed. Point 4), that "Fossil evidence supports this general trend" of water receding over all of geologic time, is just not true. The water has ebbed and flowed many times. Point 5) surprises me, as I don't remember hearing it before: "The expanding earth theory explains why the continents are very even in thickness. Plate tectonics has no explanation for this." Probably the reason plate tectonics doesn't explain it is because it isn't true. The continental plates vary considerably in thickness.

The Expanding Earth hypothesis is fun, the fit is kinda neat, but the argument is weak. That's why J. Tuzo Wilson (who ExpErdMann points out was an early proponent) abandoned it. Modern evidence is lacking, so the expansion would have to include periods of stopping, or even shrinking. Plate tectonics may not be a perfected theory, but to say that "Plate tectonics has no explanation for this," is disingenuous.

The two theories are not in competition (one's going to be a "winner" and the other a "loser"). Geophysics is the one realm of science where unselfish cooperation still regularly takes place, not withstanding a few instances of megalomania. It's still better than most.

No. You kinda have it backwards. If it were respectable and mainstream TODAY, it would be taught in schools.

EE is not a scientific theory because there is no evidence to support its main requirement, ie in order for the earth to expand, it must be either gaining matter from the solar system or generating it from inside. A better characterization is that it is an early and failed HYPOTHESIS.

Maybe I need to put a link to a site on the scientific method in my sig. Its a real problem with a lot of the threads here.

I don't think I said that! We do have ongoing seafloor spreading at midocean ridges. Without subduction we must suppose the Earth to be expanding. To prove that the Earth is actually expanding is however a difficult task. There are GPS studies showing that certain parts of the globe are rising. I suppose if such rising occurred everywhere on the globe that might constitute proof of expansion. But here again, expansion could be episodic, in which case the absence of positive results now do not mean that expansion never happened or that it will not happen again.

I did concede that experiments to measure decreasing G according to Dirac's theory have mostly negative results. In the previous thread I perhaps focused too much on the decreasing G theory. I don't know of too many expansionists who are supporting that mechanism.

On point 1 we disagree of course. Point 1 is EE's smoking gun. One of the pieces of evidence which ushered in plate tectonics was Carey's fitting together of South America and Africa by including the shelves. This was considered proof positive of continental drift. So when you say that the far more dramatic demonstration by Hilgenberg, Carey and others that all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, you are going to some different standard of evidence, one which eludes me. On point 2 there is a lot of conjecture surrounding subduction, but I submit there is no smoking gun.

DStahl said on page 4 of the previous thread that there were surface rocks in Oregon that were derived from seafloor, stating this was evidence that seafloor could escape subduction. He didn't gave the ages of these rocks however. If they were older than 300 million yeears that would be interesting.

Ice ages have of course caused temporary fluctuations. I am referring to a longterm transition from submerged continents to exposed ones. No one has provided feedback on this yet.

They vary by a few kilometers are so from place to place, but this is small potatoes. EE explains the even thickness nicely, since the sial crust differentiated out smoothly over the whole globe as it cooled. In PT, you need to explain why the sial crust differentiated to cover only 1/4 of the globe and why it did this at even thickness.

Expansion on Earth could occur in phases, as you say, and this makes it a hard thing to study. Since it is difficult to measure changes in the Earth's size in any case, I would be happy to limit this discussion to the question: Did expansion occur on Earth and Mars in the past? This is the most interesting question from the evolutionary perspective.

As for Tuzo Wilson, I think he saw which way the parade was going and opted to be a leader rather than to be ignored on the sidelines!

You're just saying cheers for the status quo. How far would science have gotten if everyone had that attitude?

I gave four different mechanisms above. The increase in mass mechanism is just one.

No less or more than the plate tectonics theory.

The real problem is people want to believe we have all the answers, when in truth we do not. The scientific method is abused all the time by those whose opinions are already fixed in stone.

There are a number of points here. First, in many EE theories, expansion is proportional to the initial radius. So Mars' total expansion might be expected to be smaller. Secondly, as discussed above, Mars seems not to have expanded to the same relative degree as the Earth. Earth has nearly doubled in radius, while Mars has increased in radius by only a factor of about 1.4. This suggests either that planetary expansion is size and/or composition dependent, or else that Mars has simply been in a long, quiet phase. If expansion depends to a certain extent on composition or size, then I'm not sure we can expect to see a uniform 'signature' of expansion in every case.

Yes. If expansion occurred on Mars, and if this expansion is reflected in the highlands/lowlands topography (which I suggest to be analogous to continents/ocean basins), then it should be possible to match up stretches of the Martian 'coastlines' with each other, in the same way that South America and Africa match up. (This test is already passed for the Earth). I don't know if anyone has tried to do this.

Also, the atmosphere of Mars should have been more dense in the past, since the atmosphere was stretched over a smaller surface area (about 1/2 as large) and since the surface gravity was greater (at constant G and mass it would have been twice as great as now). Planetary expansion predicts longterm planetary cooling for these two reasons. On Earth there is much evidence that the early Earth was hotter, and now it seems to be the case for Mars too.

That attitude is not for "everyone" its for SCHOOLS. Schools do not teach fringe science, they only teach what is well established. It is the responsibility of good scientists to be open minded - which in this case means you must open-mindedly look at the evidence and realize your position is wrong.
Huh? Are you saying the earth can get bigger without getting more massive? Thats self-contradictory (unless of course the earth has a hollow center). A further misunderstanding of the evidence and of the scientific method itself. Plate techtonics is hard science. It is a thoroughly proven theory (which is to say 99% or better, but not obviously ever 100%). Actually, you both have it right and have it backwards. You avoid the scientific method because you think you have all the answers (or maybe you are afraid to find out/admit that you don't) and your opinions are already fixed in stone. Any good scientist knows he does not have all the answers. Apply the scientific method and you will find that you are wrong in this case.

There are various mechanisms. See my postings in this thread or the Expanding Earth Video thread.

It makes me want to cry when I think about what they teach schoolkids about geology and cosmology. They have limited defences. That's partly why I'm pitching EE out here - most people aren't aware of this theory.

Before you preach scientific method further to me, I suggest you read up on the expanding Earth. The books by Carey are a good start - "The Expanding Earth" and "Theories of the Earth and Universe". I guarantee it's interesting reading, whatever conclusions you come to.

DStahl brought up the GPS measurements that essentially show no modern Earth expansion in that thread, and your response was that "EE can live with that," but that there was one possible quibble, mentioned earlier. As near as I can tell, that was the objection raised in your post the day before, which speculated that if G were increasing then the GPS effects might cancel out. There's nothing to support that idea (unless you are talking about the possibility of everything doubling, say, even our rulers! But then so would the continents, and there would be no stretching and breaking of the surface.)
That's basically what I was getting at, there.
That pretty much gets rid of the objection you seemed to have above, too. Was there another?
That fit is about the only evidence that EE has. On the other hand, Carey's fit was not considered essential, neither to plate tectonics which came long after, nor to continental drift, which came long before. I am not going to some different standard of evidence.
So, you consider that the continents fit together on a smaller Earth a "smoking gun," but you don't consider the evidence for subduction? Now, that would seem to be a double standard.
Interesting? You mean, it would refute EE, right?

They only vary by a few kilometers from place to place? But then they are only a few kilometers thick. What do you mean by a "few"? Which continental thickness figures are you using?

I am in a bad position here, in that I don't have a lot of the GPS data at my fingertips. I am only aware of certain studies, such as Mitrovica's study of the North Atlantic sea level, which do indicate an upward movement. Over the oceans such findings could mean either that the sea level has risen (as Mitrovica suggested) or that the seafloor has. What is really necessary here is a systematic study of the whole globe at one point in time, to see whether a general uplift is occurring. The study mentioned by DStahl was a little dated.

I think my point that GPS data could lead to a false impression if G was decreasing is still valid, but as already mentioned I would prefer to set Dirac's theory aside for now.

Regardless of the relative importance of Carey's contribution, the fitting together of the continents was the major impetus for continental drift, was it not? So the fitting together of the continents (plus shelves) on a smaller globe should be a major impetus for EE.

You said earlier that you have seen the reconstructions, but still find PT to be better. How is that possible? For me, I find it miraculous enough that two pieces of cowhide with the same odd shape can be stitched over a baseball to make a perfect cover. There seems to be some aesthetic aspect at play here, where different people see the same thing and walk away with entirely different impressions.

On DStahl's Oregon rocks, I'm a little reluctant to commit myself without understanding them better. I don't know what kind of crazy rocks they have out there! Their age could be important in any case, so I'd be curious.

I'm just saying that the existence of sial crust that is uniformly a few kilometers thick is consistent with its fractioning out on a smaller globe as a uniformly thick layer. The variations we see now are due to such later processes as orogenesis and the deformation which is caused when more sharply curved continents (on the smaller globe) are stretched out onto a less curved larger globe.

I should say bring on your smoking gun of subduction, except that I am fearful it will be couched in so much PT jargon that it will be unfathomable to me. The one you used in the earlier thread, the Tonga trench, had been discussed by Carey in the EE context, and seems problematic now. Do you have another one?

Well, it's a start, and if you don't have anything to refute it, you don't have much left to support your position, unless, as I said, you just rely on historical data and not modern data.
But that's the only other alternative. If you set that aside, and you set aside DStahl's study, all you have left is that coincidence of Carey's. Interestingly, by not using the continental shelves, it seems that that reduces the coincidence, doesn't it? You don't need to start with the continental shapes, you can start with other shapes--say the shoreline shape.

But that is what I've been trying to convince you of anyway--given that the continents have participated in a couple supercontinent supercycles, they're bound to fit together fairly well--so that doesn't lend much support, as a coincidence, to Carey's theory at all.

You're going to have to explain how expansion can happen if you want to be taken seriously. Right now, I see a change in G as the only real possibility--you can't ignore it.
Absolutely not. Wegener's work had very little to do with the fit. A lot of people have noticed the coincidence. Part of the reason that it never went anywhere before Wegener was that it could well have had some ordinary physical cause. For example, the banks of the Mississippi river would fit together pretty well--surely, you're not going to use that to claim that they used to fit together!
I see. The baseball example might be a good example--if you understand how the baseball was designed, and how they're made, then it's not so much of a "miracle." Same for plate tectonics. Rather than defending the expanding earth hypothesis, perhaps you should better understand plate tectonics. The expanding earth hypothesis is interesting, but it has little to support it, and it doesn't offer many new insights.
Well, you can't say it's uniform, and then admit it's not uniform, because of other effects. The fact of the matter is, it's not uniform.
As opposed to EE jargon? Let's address the issues. If you don't understand PT, we'll try to help.

You have not answered this simple question anywhere. You just keep contradicting yourself. I'm starting to wonder if you even understand what the words "mass" and "massive" mean. Why bother? So far, NOTHING you have said in either thread has even begun to warrant further study. There is simply nothing to this idea at all.