False. The figure applies to slab-rollback in general. No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receeding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37. So there is no way to predict the how the absolute length of day has changed. It must be calculated from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. In fine, no comparison can be made between methods that are independent from the orbital period and your argument is dead. Trolling is your speciality not mine. I adressed what you said: It is possible to dismiss a theory but not to refute it using Ockham's razor. The growing earth theory relies on evidence that render the principle of parcimony useless here. But since you deny reading Carey's review, it means that you just don't care and are just a troll. You misconstrue what I write and you do that constantly. I said that proposing a physical mechanism in absence of data to support it is a scientific suicide. Don't shout please. Proposing a physical mechanism makes no sense as long as we have no data to support one. We can only infer from the observations that earth is growing in mass from inside but we can't propose a physical mechanism yet to explain it at a subatomic level because we have no data to make an hypothesis. You missed the initial step! 1. Observe a phenomenon 2. Propose a mechanism 3. Make predictions 4. Test the predictions experimentally. Without the initial observation there is nothing that can be done. That is the way science works. You just proved that you don't know how science works. That is ok (except if you are a scientist!), but in this case don't pretend to know how science works. You don't. So be humble and learn from professional scientists like Carey.