Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: Phage

So thermal expansion does not really have any significant impact regarding continental drift?

a reply to: andy06shake
Oh, thermal expansion (and contraction) is probably involved with aspects of plate tectonics somewhere along the line. But the current warming trend isn't.

But the OP is not about "continental drift", it's about an expanding Earth.

a reply to: Phage

I thought the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics were intrinsically linked.

What i mean is if indeed our land masses/continents drift atop a liquid core. And some in cress in temperature causes expansion, would that not effect our Earths crust?

a reply to: andy06shake
The theory of continental drift was superseded by plate tectonics.

What i mean is if indeed our land masses/continents drift atop a liquid core.

They do not. Plate tectonics says that crustal plates (which include oceanic regions) move across the Earth's mantle. It has nothing to do with the liquid core.

a reply to: Phage

But dont those crustal plates including the oceanic regions that move across our Earth's mantle do so precisely because our Earth possesses a a magnetic iron spinning liquid core?

What im trying to understand is how thermal expansion can effect the core and mantel yet not significantly effect our crust?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I see that you're still avoiding facts. The line West of the Mariana Islands? That's a divergent boundary to the Philippine Plate. That's because the Islands are a part of the small Mariana Plate. So, subduction, volcanoes, divergent boundary. Is that clear enough? So, no intelligence involved.

This thread is getting ridiculous. No wait, it already was ridiculous.

originally posted by: andy06shake
What i mean is if indeed our land masses/continents drift atop a liquid core.

That's not how it works.
See the first video I posted earlier in the thread here explaining the current model.

And some in cress in temperature causes expansion, would that not effect our Earths crust?

Not much. Look up the thermal coefficient of expansion for rock. It's a small coefficient and the claims in this thread are for relatively large effects.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanx Arbitrageur will give it a go when i get home.

Obviously there is still rather a lot i dont understand pertaining to the subject.

a reply to: andy06shake

But dont those crustal plates including the oceanic regions move across our Earth's mantle precisely because our Earth possesses a a magnetic iron spinning liquid core?

No. But I do need to clarify my statement. While the plates do not "drift atop a liquid core", the heat from the core does drive the convection of the mantle which results in the spreading of the plates. research.bpcrc.osu.edu...

What im trying to understand is how thermal expansion can effect of core and mantel yet not significantly effect our crust?

Thermal expansion occurs when something absorbs heat. The core is not getting hotter.

a reply to: andy06shake

Convection in the mantle provides the forces for plate tectonics. Including divergent plate boundaries and the countervailing areas of subduction. So - no expanding Earth.

a reply to: Phage

Well thanks for attempting to explain how it works anyway.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Phage

Well thanks for attempting to explain how it works anyway.

Ill try to simplify plate tectonics for ya.

The Earth has a solid Nickle core, and around it, molten rock that has convective currents that cause the crust to move about, expanding in places, and subducting in other places. Some of the theory tries to explain that continents are actually re fabricated from the molten core. And, the earth has had a constant diameter throughout its existence. Oh, and the Oceans the size they are now, have always been here. Plate tectonics in a nut shell.

One of the major problems with this theory is, the ocean beds are no more than 280 million years old. And the vast majority of the beds are no more than 70 million years old. And one at this point may wonder, if there were no ocean beds before that time, where did all that water set prior 280 million years? Where was the water? And if it wasn't here before 280 million years, where did it come from. That is just one issue.

Another is the molten core. If Earth, or any other planet had a molten core, the heat from the core would transfer to the surface, eventually. And as far as I can tell, over 4.5 billion years, it hasn't done it. Then they counter with, then where does the lava from Volcanoes and the oceanic rifts come from. They are simply local chemical/ excess pressure reactions.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Some of the theory tries to explain that continents are actually re fabricated from the molten core.

Which part of the theory does that?

Oh, and the Oceans the size they are now, have always been here. Plate tectonics in a nut shell.

False. Plate tectonics does not make that claim.

And one at this point may wonder, if there were no ocean beds before that time

There is no such claim in the theory of plate tectonics.

If Earth, or any other planet had a molten core, the heat from the core would transfer to the surface, eventually. And as far as I can tell, over 4.5 billion years, it hasn't done it. Then they counter with, then where does the lava from Volcanoes and the oceanic rifts come from. They are simply local chemical/ excess pressure reactions.

The heat is what drives tectonic movement.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

There are so many things wrong with your post about Plate Tectonics, it's no wonder you have an issue with the science behind it.

I really, really recommend that you sit down and educate yourself about tectonics of the Earth before you try to explain it to others, because all you're doing right now is teaching false information.

a reply to: andy06shake

Point with thermal expansion is that the expansion is caused by things changing temperature.

You can pump energy into and through an object, but as long as its temperature doesn't change, then it won't experience much if any expansion due to thermal effects.

So even through the core is hot, and heat does escape to the surface, that energy is radiated away at roughly equilibrium meaning the temperature of the rock through the day / night cycle, doesn't change significantly.

If you go into the ground, you find that the day/night cycle effect decreases, and deeper still you find that seasonal temperature changes even become negligible. Thus... the Earth doesn't significantly contract or expand on the crust level due to internal heating or seasonal effects. The most it does it cause small fractures and cracks

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Please re-educate yourself with basic plate tectonics. There's so much wrong with your post that I barely know where to start.

a reply to: Phage

Oh, and the Oceans the size they are now, have always been here. Plate tectonics in a nut shell.

False. Plate tectonics does not make that claim.

Phage, your going to have to take that up with Arbitrageur from the first page.

No, we are not told that, the earth was still about 2/3 covered by water back then just as it is today. There were huge oceans 127 million years ago and 140 million years ago wasn't much different, here's the model of 127 million years ago:

Now I did say, nutshell. As you might have guessed There are questions and observations that are not being addressed concerning the theory of Plate Tectonics..

Again, how can you have all that heat and it decides to surface in one of the coolest environments on the planet? Water? Especially in the arctic, antarctic ???? If this were happening I would expect the "Rifts" to open first, in the hottest regions of the planet. Sahara, Mojave ,Sonoran Deserts??

a reply to: Phage

The heat is what drives tectonic movement.

In theory. Correct?

And one at this point may wonder, if there were no ocean beds before that time

There is no such claim in the theory of plate tectonics.

I didn't say it was part of the theory, only that one might wonder.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye


Some of the theory tries to explain that continents are actually re fabricated from the molten core.

Which part of the theory does that?

Subduction does. All that subducted material, must go somewhere, right?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

There are so many things wrong with your post about Plate Tectonics, it's no wonder you have an issue with the science behind it.

I really, really recommend that you sit down and educate yourself about tectonics of the Earth before you try to explain it to others, because all you're doing right now is teaching false information.

It is not my intention to teach falsities. But then again, If I must teach, I would rather not teach unsubstantiated theory, as fact.

If you could kindly answer andy06shake's question in the most simplest terms, I'm sure he and I would both appreciate it.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Phage, your going to have to take that up with Arbitrageur from the first page.

Why? It is your claim that:

Oh, and the Oceans the size they are now, have always been here. Plate tectonics in a nut shell.

Not Arb's. There have been oceans for a very long time. Different Oceans and changing sizes.

Subduction does. All that subducted material, must go somewhere, right?

Yes. It returns to the mantle. The mantle is not the core.