Direct observation:
Subduction.
Shear Zones.

Measured Observation: No change in Earths radius in the last 620 million years. This limits the time during which the Earth could have expanded to prior to that.
Crustal movement indicates that the continents were much closer together even 78 - 90 million years ago than they are today. Making continental drift due to expansion extremely unlikely.

Subduction could be due to contraction and shear zones could be due to general stretching and squashing of the crust as we inflate and deflate.

However the latter points are seriously in the way of expanding/contracting Earth. The evidence for crustal movement may have to be successfully challenged with an at least plausible alternative since the unified theory states Earth expanded with its Flora and Fauna and contracted similarly.

This response is by far the most sensible challenge to the UTE so far

I think I tackle the continental movement second if you don't mind (since I think that is an issue more open to interpretation) and challenge the ultimate deal-breaker. No change in the Earth's radius fór 620 m years. That crushes ECE. Now - how do we know this is true? (None of us were around then so we must be interpreting a derivative of that period.)

FWIW I am reading Terra Non Firma Earth By James Maxlow which is free online

According to the preface he has checked mineral, geological and magnetic continuities across the separated Pacific continents. I will report back

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B...esult#PPA27,M1

I only have it on pdf so hang on... There may be an Edit added to this post later...


ETA: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...RG900016.shtml

Page 32 of the Maxlow book link a very interesting map. Perhaps contradicts the idea of exponential expansion. Cream = 'blow off' phase (stock chart metaphor) then 2 squashed bands and ridges subducting rapidly IMO

Dates TBC

Please excuse if I get absorbed in reading 4 a bit

Looks like Adams massaged the data...

edit

no he didn't Fig 2 P 33

BAUT seems to have prob with edits I don't

Correct me if I am wrong but this study measures the activity of the Moon on the Earth I think. If Earth mass remains (fairly) constant, but radius changes, then periodicity of Lunar months is unaffected.

We see a slow and slowing Lunar recession taking place. (I wonder if this extension in distance is to compensate for the loss of mass from Earth (H)?)

James Maxlow would be a good person to answer this because he is a geologist with special interest in Australia

http://www.newiki.org/main/index.php?title=James_Maxlow

LOL I just noticed the pdf link..

and find this
referring to pictures on P 42

How they can count individual days from those strata beats me

edit

pdf link

http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v038/...99RG900016.pdf

This is garbage and not worthy of any more of my time. Good luck with your fantasy, Rodin. If you ever undertake a study of biological evolution, you may wish to peruse these articles.
A study of dynamic evolutionary processes

__________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly - it should be thrown with great force

Goodbye then posts with links like you offered are a waste of mine

WOW!! Those are some pretty LARGE numbers - I'm not sold out on either position here, but I'm curious as to how solid those times are? How do you know they're correct and not based on some (possibly 'flawed') assumptions? Is it at all possible that they're wrong (and let's not get all religious about it - it's not beyond questioning )?

This thread is not dead I see that we can test lunar cycles with sedimentary tidal data but find it hard to believe we can check daily rotational times 50 million years ago.

However what the lunar data proves is that the Earth mass has NOT grown over time as the Neal Adams camp propose therefore very supporti6ve of the notion that we are talking simple phase change here not mass-from-the-ether.

Not saying this is definitely right but the simplest phase change would be neutrons > hydrogen

Are we sure Earth's core was not capable of holding condensed matter until the planet matured/cooled a bit? Geared to temp and pressure? We don't really know for sure what is down there now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structu...h#cite_note-12

Certainly we can make a decent stab at P from mass/gravity measurement, but T?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/gen99256.htm

my emphasis

why must it slow down with depth?

Why assume 7000 deg C?

What would be the consequence of a core many times hotter than current estimates for matter down there? Could matter be collapsed or supercondensed? Is there a big fission reactor down there?

Plenty to chew on

Why not? Please try to show us, in an appropriate mathematical treatment of heat capacity and heat flow in an iron core and silicate mantle/crust, why you think it should have a steeper temperature gradient down there.
It is not assumed. It is inferred by geophysicists on the basis of aforementioned thermodynamic characteristics.
My educated guess is that the surface would be much hotter, and that we would not be here to speculate about anything.
Plenty to spit out, because it tastes bad. Sorry, I could not resist a wisecrack.