ImagingGeek,
I’m not sure if you are intentionally using evasive tactics to obfuscate the basic issue we are trying to resolve:

Whether a reduction in surface gravity is possible given the consolidation of land masses that formed Pangea and to what extent that surface gravity changed.

Again, your two-hemisphere example using homogenous hemispheres of constant density (i.e., no central, very dense core material or material of variable density with depth) makes your calculations of no value. I won’t be diverted from the issue I specified above.

Your next set of statements 1-5 are partially correct. One that is wrong is:

“5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea.”
YES! WE AGREE HERE.

“ Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases”
NO, THE SEPARATION INCREASES BECAUSE THE COR REMAINS THE SAME.

“You love shooting yourself in the foot - don't you.” Seems like you are good at that. The only way what you stated could happen is if the COR moved. It is very obvious that if that happened the Earth would have been in an even more unbalanced state....not only Pangea but a big chunk of earth would be causing the imbalance.

Your references to fluid mechanics and the inner/outer core movements don’t apply here. You can’t apply a laboratory-observed result to this situation. The core(s), as I have explained many times, are subject to at least three forces:

1. The force pushing the core(s) away from Pangea (Newton’s 3rd Law as you previously described).
2. Centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s)as they move off-center, directed radially away from the center.
And last,
3. Just as in every planetary body, gravitational forces push all mass to the center of mass of the body; the densest material accumulating around the COM.

Therefore, this flow-around concept:
“the mantle will flow as a fluid would”
which works in a laboratory experiment in which the above 3 forces are absent negates your fluid mechanics explanation.

Again you are, IMO, using a lot of faulty, extraneous, erroneous information to try to distract viewers from the realization that you are wrong. It is you who has misread Newton, starting with the ‘r’ in his simple equation on gravity.

Your assumption that the center of rotation (COR) moves as the center of mass (COM) moves proves that your knowledge of physics needs improvement. Your comparing a laboratory style experiment in fluid mechanics to the inner/outer core dynamics only reenforces this. And, your constant whining about your calculations, which don’t apply here because of your assumptions, not being taken seriously is getting tiresome. Your original request was to resolve the question of whether surface ‘g’ could change, and if so, by how much. Your original postings agreed that it could change.....now you have reversed course and state that it couldn’t. Not a very scientific approach IMO.

Laze