Expanding earth explains the edges of a supercontinent better than static diameter pangaea hypothesis.
Imagine a smaller earth, this permits a pangaea with all edges touching - and they just so happen to fit in this scheme, too.
Satellites have tried to disprove an expanding earth by measuring the movements of continents from one another. But a linear expansion is not required, hence no disproof has been established yet.
Consider then, episodic expansion, like punctuated equilibrium. Ever-hot, the core pushes outwards, evidence being found in volcanic activity. We have also the push and pull of the moon on tides, which must effect the crust also, weakening it in a back-and-forth rocking motion, creating fissures which allow outgassing and lava to flow to the surface.
Why episodic expansion? Events internal or external to the earth must have impact as well on its stability and rate of growth eon to eon. For example, the rise and fall of the solar system in the disc of the milky way, which may cause a tilt in the axis of rotation, or the proximity of gas giants as the earth rolls along in its orbit. Or the momentous giving way of layers of rocks within, which after being pressed for millenia, suddenly let burst forth a dam in a night, or a century, a thrust which may be evidenced in the geological record.
No- the expanding earth is far from disproven - rather its detractors like flat-earthers of old, only spur its proponents to refine the model to better fit the data.