Plates grow (!) - do not move

To some extent Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion are similar in regard to the ocean floors.  Both recognise that the continents have been distended by the amount of ocean floors and that to this extent the surface of the Earth has got bigger.  It's just that Plate Tectonics interprets subduction zones (wrongly) as a zone of compensatory disappearance of the ocean floors where gravity has swallowed an equivalent amount of older (colder) ocean floor, so that the Earth doesn't get bigger at all but remains a constant size.

Well, ..if this were true it would certainly make for a weird shape for the Earth, ..getting bigger in one part and shrinking in another.  But Plate Tectonics asks that we overlook such niceties of shape, saying that the ocean floors are moving (all-of-a-piece) from the spreading ridges to the subduction zone - growing at the ridges and shrinking at the subduction zones, .. getting bigger 'there' and shrinking 'here'.

However, Earth Expansion says that the ocean floors are growing, not moving.  What's more, this growth is in the direction of the ridge axis - from both sides (!)

But isn't there a space problem?  How can the ridge grow 'into itself' so to speak?

Well of course it can't (grow into itself).  And to say it does reflects Flat-Earth thinking, for the apparent space problem is obviated by the ridges simply moving up.  On a curved surface this means increasing space and that yes indeed they do move apart, but without the need for any commensurate consumption at the subduction zones.  Upwards movement describes perfectly what we see of the ridges: they are moving up - and collapsing both into the dilating axial zone, and on to their gravitationally unstable flanks (recognised in Plate Tectonics as "ridge-push").

So where's the difference then between Earth Expansion and Plate Tectonics, which latter also recognises the ridges as the biggest expression of 'up'-movement on the planet?   The difference is that in Earth Expansion the ridges keep (keep) moving up.

But anyway, in Plate Tectonics they don't really don't move up at all for they've already done all their moving up; once they're up, they're up, and don't move any further up for if they did it would mean there would be an imbalance between the moving up (ridge rise) and subduction - which wouldn't do.   So what made the ridges move up in the first place (in Plate Tectonics), that's different from the ghostly unknown cause that keeps them moving up in Earth Expansion? Since Plate Tectonics recognises subduction as the driver, it would logically have to say that it is the first draw-down of the first subducting plate that sets it all off - whatever it was that caused that.

In fact the profile of the ridges and the configuration of the corresponding transform faults are the most demonstrable expression of the increasing size of the Earth, with the rest of the planet's surface continually gravitationally adjusting its curvature, most perceptibly at the exposed boundary between the lithosphere and the asthenosphere (subduction zone) where the curvature of the old continental lithosphere is collapsing out over the newly exhumed mantle (read in Plate Tectonics as subduction).  And along other major dislocations as well, such as the on-continent active earthquake zones.  In Plate Tectonics on the other hand the 'moving up' is only to the extent of balancing the gravity-induced sinking of the subducting slab that drives the Plate Tectonic engine; the 'keep moving up' can only be to the extent of maintaining the balance of subduction.  But balance means equilibrium, and equilibrium means the ridge would move neither up nor down: equilibrium would be maintained.  There would be no collapse of a topographically high ridge.  Nor would the ocean floor be drawn down in some gaping maw tens of hundreds of kilometres wide.  Indeed the existing situation - a ridge that keeps collapsing to the extent of having a huge rift down the middle of it - is exquisite confirmation of upwards growth of the ocean floor, and gravitational correction of that growth.  Similarly, the inexorable outwards spreading of the continental lithosphere over the exhumed oceanic mantle is obvious expression of curvature correction from the continental side. For Plate Tectonics 'ridge-push' is a shoot-in-the-foot, not a shot-in-the-arm.

Similarly, when read correctly the transform faults of the ocean floors are proof (exquisitely elegant) of ocean floor growth (not movement) in the direction of the ridges (i.e., upwards), leaving the legacy of gravitational correction passively behind, and the evidence for enlargement in the stepped offsets of their start points.

And if you think it's bad of me to be sledging Plate Tectonics and its promoters like this on account of them being incorrigibly dumb over something that is obvious to see, then it's time for you to seriously consider the subtext of all of this.