Expanding Earth Theory (missing mass resolved)

[Ringer]

Gases are not in there natural gaseous state when under high pressure, they become liquids. Different liquids tend to dissolve into one another so the gases would have been reasonably evenly distrubuted throughout much like stiring sugar into tea. The liquid gases would most likely be near the crust as they are less affected by gravity in comparison to heavier elements like iron.

 

His analogy works just as well for liquids as gases.

 

Also, when did it go from gases to liquids in the core?

 

 

The main problems I have with plate techtonics is the idea of Pangaea. To create one giant super continent, there would have to be one focal point at the exact polar opposite of the center of the super continent which is pushing the continental plates into one giant continent at the exact polar opposite of this focal point. This focal point would be exerting a force equally in all directions outwards. This is ludicrous, no focal point exists and it could never exist. If there is no focal point there are no rules governing where the plates go and so therefore the chances of them forming one super continent are zero.

 

So the other super-continents don't bother you? What do you mean by it needs a a polar opposite?

 

I don't think you know your statistics well enough to say the chances are zero. In fact I know you don't because 1.) Even if they moved in completely random directions there is still a chance of collision 2.) The chances of anything happening that has happened is by definition 1.

 

Since being taught this at school when I was 13, I always had a feeling that it wasn't right - more than anything it's ugly and nature is not ugly. And I always figured that currents within the core are no where near sufficient to move entire continents and create huge mountain ranges. If the currents had that much energy we would have volcanoes spewing out lava into space! My thought processes are mathematical in nature and in short, none of the current theories add up for me.

 

Let's see the math for that claim that the lava could go into space.

 

It doesn't matter what your opinion or thoughts are nature will do whatever it wants, it doesn't care to make you happy. Nor does it care if you believe the way it works is ugly, personally I think many things in nature are ugly, but that doesn't make them any less true. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference nor is it evidence of you being right.

 

 

1.Like I said already, 50 years is nothing in geological time. I have said already that some polar opposites might show a decrease in expansion due to continental collapse caused by gravity. So 50 years of data +/- 1mm means absolutely nothing. I didn't spot that it said radius, thought it was diameter. But still the maths I posted goes to show that fractions of millimeters results in significant changes over billions of years however fractions of millimeters can be accounted for by a number of factors which do not directly correlate to expansion i.e. weathering, crimping activities, collapse caused by gravity and shifts. In other words there is a lot of noise which cannot be filtered out over a short period of time and especially not in a time when the expansion rate is most likely to be at it's lowest rate.

 

Here's a bit more maths ..

 

2000km (diameter) x 1,000,000 (for mm) / 4.5 billion years = 0.45mm per year assuming a linear rate of expansion.

 

I have suggested the Earth is currently at an extremely flat part of the expansion curve. So the rate is most likely no where near 0.45mm per year, more likely 0.0001mm per year. Let's assume at peak rate the expansion rate was 100mm per year, that's not unreasonable considering the energies involved, in fact it is probably much more than that but have attached a graph with 100mm per year at peak.

 

This describes the release of an explosive type event caused by pressure release. It is comparible to most other graphs describing pressure release.

 

Again you don't understand the statistics being used. Any measurement that overlaps zero when taking into account the error is not significant. Since the measure was .1mm (+/- .2) our range of confidence overlaps with zero.

 

2. In the other forum I talked about shifts. I don't discount the possibility of sections of the Earth's crust shifting because after all they are sitting on a liquid. With the expanding Earth theory there are 3 types of seizmic type activity. The first is collapse, if the Earth's crust expands, continental plates won't immediately adopt the new curvature of the Earth, therefore the center of continental plates may be subject to collapse due to gravity. As a result of collapse a continental plates exerts on outward force at it's edges. As a result of this the second seizmic activity takes place which is crimping whereby the outward forces fragments the rock at the edges of a continental plates and pushes it upwards thus creating mountain ranges. The third seizmic activity is caused by shifts whereby instead of a plate crimping, it might shift and resposition itself slightly. But these shifts do not result in trends i.e. shifting in the same direction over thousands of years does not necessarily mean that plate will continue to shift in that direction indefinitely, in fact it might start shifting in the other direction.

 

 

because of all of this it's extremely difficult to find trends and laws, in fact the physics is entirely chaotic. Much like trying to predict exactly and precisely what water will do when poured over a surface.

 

So what you're saying is your model isn't able to make predictions with the accuracy of plate tectonics?

 

 

3 and 4. Subduction is still viable with an expanding Earth due to a combination of crimping and shifting. Also the outward pressure caused by collapse attempts to increase the width if you like of a continental plate. An anology, bend a piece of card from edge to edge, lat it down on a table, measure the distance between edges, press it flat and then measure the distance between edges. The flattened card covers a greater distance. So subduction can occur but it takes a lot of energy to push one section of solid matter under another section of solid matter. So the oceanic plate would have to bulge up a lot against the harder continental plate before subduction takes place, the bigger the bulge the more gravity there is pulling the bulge down and because the oceanic crust is much softer and more malleable than the continental crust it is likely that it will get pushed under the continental plate. But I don't feel that this force alone is sufficient to push mountains into the air, for that to happen the continental plate needs to collapse and crimp up.

 

Your analogy doesn't work, you are changing the card's shape not it's area. Your premise needs you to show how, with consistent growth, these things can happen instead of the more likely scenario that the world would just blow-up.

 

6. Gases under the crust are pressurised into liquid states. If pressure is released the gases will transform from their liquid state to a gas state in a explosive manner.

 

You still haven't explained why the world wouldn't just explode, how the gas expulsion has yet to reach equilibrium, make an accurate prediction, why expansion hasn't been observed, etc.

[Rich_A12]

There is a lot of noise when it comes to what exactly the crust is doing at any one time. This noise makes inaccurate any tiny measurments we make in this time, the paradox is that tiny variances are indeed significant in geological time.

 

Gravity prevents the planet from exploding. Equilibrium may already have been realised, but the consequences of a change in curvature play out over millions of years, that's why we still see the affects in the form of earthquakes, volcanoes, subduction and shifting. Gravity takes a long time to act, hang a piece of glass horizontally and come back 100,000 years later, gravity will have caused the glass to bend into a semi circle.

 

Seizmic activities seem significant to us because they significantly affect our lives but go back 2 billion years and there would have been a heck of a lot more activity. The atmosphere also affects pressure under the crust, a hotter atmosphere insulates the core from the cold of space therefore pressure might begin to increase again if core temperatures rise.

[Greg H.]

Gases are not in there natural gaseous state when under high pressure, they become liquids. Different liquids tend to dissolve into one another so the gases would have been reasonably evenly distrubuted throughout much like stiring sugar into tea. The liquid gases would most likely be near the crust as they are less affected by gravity in comparison to heavier elements like iron.

 

Ok, there is so much wrong with that statement I don't even know how to respond to it. First, not all liquids will readily mix - ever eaten oil and vinegar on your salad? It's a nonsensical statement unless you know which gasses or liquids you're talking about (i.e. you have some kind of empirical evidence of these gasses so we can all be on the same page). And the phrase "liquid gasses" makes no sense at all. They're either liquids or gasses; not both. They may be liquefied gasses but those present their own special problems. Once the crust ruptured to start letting the "liquid gasses" out, the overall pressure would begin falling even more rapidly as the liquid began to boil out. At a certain point, the surface of the earth in that area would subside significantly with the falling pressure, and keep subsiding as the pressure chamber continued emptying.

 

His analogy works just as well for liquids as gases.

 

Also, when did it go from gases to liquids in the core?

 

I was kind of wondering that myself.

[Rich_A12]

His analogy works just as well for liquids as gases.

 

Also, when did it go from gases to liquids in the core?

 

When there was enough gravity and mass to create enough pressure. As the crust formed the pressures would have increased yet further because the crust would be acting as a seal or container. As the planet falls closer to the sun the pressures become extreme and cause the crust to crack open, the pressures then try to equalise which results in expansion. It sounds too simple to be true I know but there is a kind of beauty in simplicity, that's what I was looking for - the simple truth and simple beauty because in my heart, I knew it existed.

 

So the other super-continents don't bother you? What do you mean by it needs a a polar opposite?

 

I don't think you know your statistics well enough to say the chances are zero. In fact I know you don't because 1.) Even if they moved in completely random directions there is still a chance of collision 2.) The chances of anything happening that has happened is by definition 1.

 

In order to combine seperate object into a group there needs to be a surrounding force pushing those seperate objects into a single location. On a sphere there would need to be a source for that surrounding force, the super continent would then form at the exact polar opposite of that source. This is ludicrous, the source doesn't not exist therefore the chances of it happening based on random physics, are zero.

 

Let's see the math for that claim that the lava could go into space.

 

We're talking about enough energy to move entire continents, to push rock several kilometers into the air and create mountain ranges. Are convection currents under the crust going to have sufficient energy for this? I don't believe they would, not even close to enough.

 

Your analogy doesn't work, you are changing the card's shape not it's area. Your premise needs you to show how, with consistent growth, these things can happen instead of the more likely scenario that the world would just blow-up.

 

The crust will not immediately take on the new curvature of the Earth post expansion. It will take time for gravity to make the crust conform with the new curvature. As the crust conforms, it will try to occupy a wider distance. This is the force that creates mountains and probably fractures too.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Ringer]

There is a lot of noise when it comes to what exactly the crust is doing at any one time. This noise makes inaccurate any tiny measurments we make in this time, the paradox is that tiny variances are indeed significant in geological time.

 

So you're right because measurements don't matter?

 

Gravity prevents the planet from exploding. Equilibrium may already have been realised, but the consequences of a change in curvature play out over millions of years, that's why we still see the affects in the form of earthquakes, volcanoes, subduction and shifting. Gravity takes a long time to act, hang a piece of glass horizontally and come back 100,000 years later, gravity will have caused the glass to bend into a semi circle.

 

Show, in math form, that the force exerted from result of the explosion is less than the force of gravity. Then think about how gravity doesn't take a long time to act. In fact it acts immediately and at all times, otherwise we could float. The whole glass curving has more to do with the whole hanging it so it won't fall.

 

Seizmic activities seem significant to us because they significantly affect our lives but go back 2 billion years and there would have been a heck of a lot more activity. The atmosphere also affects pressure under the crust, a hotter atmosphere insulates the core from the cold of space therefore pressure might begin to increase again if core temperatures rise.

 

 

So we are just taking your word on it then?

[Moontanman]

When did this happen and where did all that gas go? Oh yeah, and how does a release of gas equate to an expanding earth?

Edited June 17, 2012 by Moontanman

[Rich_A12]

I cannot give you exact physics and numbers, only a super computer powering years of programming could do it! But it's not too hard to visualise. Also bare in mind that Earth was struck by a massive body about half the size that Earth was at that time and Earth did not explode then. It totally deformed Earth and smashed the crust into pieces leaving bare molten rock, so I doubt there is anything that can make a planet explode although a dying star would devour a plent in seconds.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO45ZiGql8E

 

Moontanman, difficult to say when as it depends how fast the planet was getting closer to the sun and how thick the crust was and how much pressure there was. Like I said, only a super computer can process and predict these things. I'd guess that fragmentation took place within 1 billion years but it may have occured within 1 million!

 

The gas elements were released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined to create the oceans. Again exact quantities can only be predicted by a computer.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Ringer]

When there was enough gravity and mass to create enough pressure. As the crust formed the pressures would have increased yet further because the crust would be acting as a seal or container. As the planet falls closer to the sun the pressures become extreme and cause the crust to crack open, the pressures then try to equalise which results in expansion. It sounds too simple to be true I know but there is a kind of beauty in simplicity, that's what I was looking for - the simple truth and simple beauty because in my heart, I knew it existed.

 

You always called it a gas, so I was asking why the sudden change in terminology since it changes much of what you have said. It doesn't matter if you knew it in your heart or it's beautiful, it's still wrong. Since the Earth isn't moving towards the sun, it's moving away from it, your idea already disagrees with experimental observation.

 

In order to combine seperate object into a group there needs to be a surrounding force pushing those seperate objects into a single location. On a sphere there would need to be a source for that surrounding force, the super continent would then form at the exact polar opposite of that source. This is ludicrous, the source doesn't not exist therefore the chances of it happening based on random physics, are zero.

 

So why is it if I have 3 papers on a table I can shove them all together without being on the other side of the table?

 

We're talking about enough energy to move entire continents, to push rock several kilometers into the air and create mountain ranges. Are convection currents under the crust going to have sufficient energy for this? I don't believe they would, not even close to enough.

 

You are talking about two entirely different time scales. To push lava into space I would need a large amount of force over a short time period, for creating mountain ranges I could do it with a little force over a very long time period.

 

The crust will not immediately take on the new curvature of the Earth post expansion. It will take time for gravity to make the crust conform with the new curvature. As the crust conforms, it will try to occupy a wider distance. This is the force that creates mountains and probably fractures too.

 

Please explain this better because it seems you are saying gravity has some sort of lag time after the explosions energy is expended, which it doesn't, and if it did it would do even less for you saying gravity would hold the world together after the explosion.

 

 

And you have yet to answer any of the actual questions posted.

 

 

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, difficult to say when as it depends how fast the planet was getting closer to the sun and how thick the crust was and how much pressure there was. Like I said, only a super computer can process and predict these things. I'd guess that fragmentation took place within 1 billion years but it may have occured within 1 million!

 

The gas elements were released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined to create the oceans. Again exact quantities can only be predicted by a computer.

 

 

Ok, one more time, how would a release of gas cause the Earth to expand?

[Rich_A12]

how does a release of gas equate to an expanding earth?

 

It's the release of pressure that equates to an expanding Earth so long as the crust doesn't prevent it. Pressure always tries to equalise itself. Imagine that the crust is totally solid, no fractures or volcanoes or anthing, just solid rock. Move it 50 million miles towards the sun, what happens? The pressures rise under the crust and create an outward force on the crust. The crust fractures violently, the outward force causes expansion and the pressure become more equalised. There is always pressure under the crust, the pressures never fully equalise or cause the Earth to deflate lol. There is a balance between pressure and how much the crust allows that pressure to cause expansion.

 

If you moved Jupiter to the same distance from the Sun as Earth is, it would be maybe 10x bigger than it is right now and it would be more gaseous i.e. less dense.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Moontanman]

It's the release of pressure that equates to an expanding Earth so long as the crust doesn't prevent it. Pressure always tries to equalise itself. Imagine that the crust is totally solid, no fractures or volcanoes or anthing, just solid rock. Move it 50 million miles towards the sun, what happens? The pressures rise under the crust and create an outward force on the crust. The crust fractures violently, the outward force causes expansion and the pressure become more equalised. There is always pressure under the crust, the pressures never fully equalise or cause the Earth to deflate lol. There is a balance between pressure and how much the crust allows that pressure to cause expansion.

 

None the less how does a release of gas from within the Earth result in an expansion of the Earth?

 

If you moved Jupiter to the same distance from the Sun as Earth is, it would be maybe 10x bigger than it is right now and it would be more gaseous i.e. less dense.

 

Jupiter is gaseous to begin with it has no solid surface and no matter how close you moved it to the Sun it would never be 10X it's current size... your argument is nonsensical...

[Bignose]

I cannot give you exact physics and numbers, only a super computer powering years of programming could do it!

 

I don't think that anyone is asking for an exact answer at this time. But, you should be able to provide what equations you would program into a computer for it to solve. And from those equations, estimates and order-of-magnitude arguments are usually fairly straightforward to make. This is done all the time by practicing engineers and physicists. How soon can you post them? If you need help doing it, just posting the pertinent equation is a good start and forum members can help you.

[Rich_A12]

That's the nature of gas elements, they gain energy and want to occupy more space as temperature increases. What happens on a real hot day when you leave a packet of crisps in the car? No extra gas gets into the bag, the gas in the bag expands with the increased heat and might even break the seal on the bag. But in space it's not so much a matter of increased heat, more a matter of decreased cold or at least that's how I prefer to look at it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Moontanman]

That's the nature of gas elements, they gain energy and want to occupy more space as temperature increases. What happens on a real hot day when you leave a packet of crisps in the car? No extra gas gets into the bag, the gas in the bag expands with the increased heat and might even break the seal on the bag. But in space it's not so much a matter of increased heat, more a matter of decreased cold or at least that's how I prefer to look at it.

 

 

No! Not when gas is dissolved in solid rock!

[D H]

The main problems I have with plate techtonics is the idea of Pangaea. To create one giant super continent, there would have to be one focal point at the exact polar opposite of the center of the super continent which is pushing the continental plates into one giant continent at the exact polar opposite of this focal point. This focal point would be exerting a force equally in all directions outwards. This is ludicrous, no focal point exists and it could never exist. If there is no focal point there are no rules governing where the plates go and so therefore the chances of them forming one super continent are zero.

 

Since being taught this at school when I was 13, I always had a feeling that it wasn't right - more than anything it's ugly and nature is not ugly. And I always figured that currents within the core are no where near sufficient to move entire continents and create huge mountain ranges. If the currents had that much energy we would have volcanoes spewing out lava into space! My thought processes are mathematical in nature and in short, none of the current theories add up for me.

 

Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is not true.

 

Your argument is straw man and an appeal to ridicule, a fallacy. You have created this false concept of a "exact polar opposite" and then ridiculed it. No such focal point is needed. All that is needed is the Earth acting as huge heat engine and the huge density and thickness differences between continental and oceanic crust. A supercontinent breaks up because the thick but low density continental crust forms a big blanket that keeps interior heat inside the Earth. The thin, high density oceanic crust lets that heat bleed through. This makes for a large temperature gradient from seashore to the center of the supercontinent. The supercontinent bulges in the middle until accumulated stress makes the supercontinent start to break up. The build up of heat opens up plate boundaries into which pours new oceanic crust from below. The supercontinent breaks up with new oceans separating chunks of the old supercontinent.

 

That breakup can't continue forever. One of two things can happen with the newly formed continents:

 

1. They will continue to drift around the globe, eventually hitting each other again after circumnavigating the globe.

2. They will eventually cease drifting and then drift back together, eating up the oceans that just formed between them.

 

The first process is fairly easy to understand. This requires such a huge buildup of heat that new oceanic crust keeps forming and forming. The diverging continents eventually re-meet on the other side. The second process results when the heat buildup isn't quite so large. That new ocean opens a new avenue for heat dissipation, thereby diminishing the driving force behind the breakup. Eventually the new ocean ridge becomes dormant, but only after having created a bunch of relatively thick oceanic crust. This represents a imbalance of potential energy. That oceanic crust diving under the light continental rock would ameliorate that imbalance. The continents reverse direction and glide over the ocean that just separated them.

 

What about option #3, the continents just stop and stay separated? That is akin to an inverted pendulum. It isn't stable. One way or the other, physics demands that the continents come back together to form a new supercontinent once the energy imbalance has been corrected.

 

 

Regarding my questions,

 

1. Apparently you do not understand what "statistically significant" means.

 

Aside: Let's take your dislike for Pangea to its expanding Earth extreme, that there was no ocean at that time (BTW, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. The oceans came first, not the continents.) This means 220 million years ago, the Earth had a radius of 3300 km, which (if the rate is linear) means a growth rate of 14 mm/year. This hypothesis can be rejected by that measurement of 0.1 mm/year ± 0.2 mm/year.

 

You can't go back 4.5 billion years with an expanding Earth. It's junk.

 

 

2 to 4. Your responses are, well, Rich, Rich. You have added plate tectonics to the expanding Earth theory!

 

 

5. The average density of the Earth is 5.52 grams per cubic centimeter. Just divide the observable mass by the observable size. You need to explain this. You can't with gas. You need something very, very dense.

 

6. Your response was non-responsive. The outer core is liquid, not gas. It can't be a gas. The observed seismic waves are inconsistent with a gas, even a highly compressed one. The inner core is solid. It can't be anything but. We see shear waves. Gases and liquids do not support such waves.

 

The concept of a gas-filled Earth is ludicrous. It is physically impossible. Expanding Earth meets hollow Earth? Come on.

[Rich_A12]

http://www.nature.co...s/268130a0.html

 

http://library.think...s_of_earth.html

 

(From second link)

 

Looking at the lower mantle, its chemical composition includes silicon, magnesium, and oxygen.

 

(Inner core) According to scientists, about 10% of this layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen due to the fact that these two elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.

[Moontanman]

http://www.nature.co...s/268130a0.html

 

http://library.think...s_of_earth.html

 

(From second link)

 

Looking at the lower mantle, its chemical composition includes silicon, magnesium, and oxygen.

 

(Inner core) According to scientists, about 10% of this layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen due to the fact that these two elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.

 

 

What is your point? These elements are chemically bound.

[Greg H.]

http://www.nature.co...s/268130a0.html

 

http://library.think...s_of_earth.html

 

(From second link)

 

Looking at the lower mantle, its chemical composition includes silicon, magnesium, and oxygen.

 

(Inner core) According to scientists, about 10% of this layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen due to the fact that these two elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.

 

You may need to explain why this matters a bit more than you did. The fact that oxygen is bound up in molten iron isn't that big of a surprise since iron captures oxygen so readily (it's called rust in the vernacular). However, once it's bound it up, it doesn't just go giving it away willy nilly.

 

Also your first source is nearly forty years old judging by the date. Isn't it just possible that someone may have done some more current research?

 

As for your second source, which scientists? Is there a list of references of a bibliography on that website that would point us at the material they based their writings on?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Greg H.

[Rich_A12]

Stop being so snobby. Bonds can be broken as environments change, I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible.

 

BTW watch from 8 min for proof that planets can migrate towards a star ..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBjlZz5ZHk

[Moontanman]

Stop being so snobby. Bonds can be broken as environments change, I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible.

 

It's not possible...

 

BTW watch from 8 min for proof that planets can migrate towards a star ..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBjlZz5ZHk

 

 

Yes bonds can be broken and yes a large percentage of the Earth is made up of chemicals that can be gasses under standard temps and pressures. But under the temps and pressures found inside the earth oxygen is never found unbound, it might change partners but it is never free.

 

Yes planets do migrate toward their stars sometimes but the planet does not expand... The atmosphere might puff up some and in the case of gas giants that makes them look bigger but not Earth sized planets!

Edited June 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[Rich_A12]

How long have you spent trying to find that out?

 

Can get carbon dioxide from iron ore by mixing it with carbon at high temperatures.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Moontanman]

How long have you spent trying to find that out?

 

? What do you mean? The expanding earth theory was discredited a century ago, so far none of the mechanisms you have suggested are connected in any way to the idea of an expanding earth.

 

Can get carbon dioxide from iron ore by mixing it with carbon at high temperatures.

 

 

Again, what does that have to do with an expanding Earth?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[Rich_A12]

A century ago they couldn't look at planets orbiting other stars!

 

As to the exact chemisty, I don't know. I'm thinking maybe it's not just gas elements that can create pressure. Energised elements will act like energised gas elements. If you have two containers the same size, one is filled with iron ore at 1,000'C and the other is filled with iron ore at 2,000'C - which exerts a greater pressure on the container? Of course all elements expand when they are heated. If this expansion is contained, the result is pressure.

[swansont]

Stop being so snobby. Bonds can be broken as environments change, I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible.

 

!

Moderator Note

1. Tone it down.

2. You need to present evidence that supports your claim and address objections.

 

Those are both part of the rules. This is non-negotiable. If you still insist on negotiating, use a PM or the report post feature.

 

 

Also: You don't have an idea and then only look for evidence that it's possible. Science doesn't work that way. Discuss this all you want or need to.

[Moontanman]

A century ago they couldn't look at planets orbiting other stars!

 

Again, what does that have to do with an expanding Earth?

 

As to the exact chemisty, I don't know. I'm thinking maybe it's not just gas elements that can create pressure. Energised elements will act like energised gas elements. If you have two containers the same size, one is filled with iron ore at 1,000'C and the other is filled with iron ore at 2,000'C - which exerts a greater pressure on the container? Of course all elements expand when they are heated. If this expansion is contained, the result is pressure.

 

The core of the Earth is about 10,000 degrees, it is still a very dense solid despite the heat due to pressure. How much temperature increase are you talking about? 100c? 1000c, 10,000c? Any temperature change great enough to significantly expand the earth would result in a rock vapor atmosphere...