That is not how science works. You think some commonly held scientific theories are wrong, fine. The nice thing about science is it will change in response to new facts. But you have to do the leg-work, you can't just wave your hands and say it's wrong on a hunch. Well, you can, but it makes you a crackpot. You have to make observations, collect evidence, and show how the observations (both your own observations and those collected by others) fit your proposed model better than the widely accepted model. Your model then needs to make a prediction along the lines of "If my theory is correct, then we would expect to observe X".
In your example of pangaea, your model is that the Earth is constantly expanding, and that this is why continents drift apart. Your prediction therefore is that you would expect to be able to measure the Earth's radius changing over time. But we already have technology to very accurately measure the size of the Earth, and this has not been observed. You would also expect the occurrence of continents colliding (as opposed to drifting apart) to be either very rare or non-existent. But we know that continents are colliding, for example, the Indian tectonic plate is moving into the Asian tectonic plate at a rate that can be accurately measured, and this collision has resulted in the formation of the Himalayas.
Your model would also have to propose how the Earth is expanding. Where is all the extra material coming from?
