Acme

As you should have seen from what I just posted, this is not the case. I think that is no analog for the 3-dimensional Earth, nor the elements involved. Reading the paper now. However even skimming it I see nothing that says the inner core is off center.

I haven't done it yet as I [sadly] don't have 2 suitable mirrors at hand. However I intend to go to a friend's where they have some hinged vanity mirrors well suited to the task and I will give it a whirl. I'm certainly intrigued by your reference to Phi as it seems to imply I might find measurements that are Fibonacci numbers. ?? Nice to know my question wasn't entirely without merit.

Then I fail to understand why you said: You still have not provided your demonstration. Moreover your description does not match the actual measurements. To whit: Core Spins Faster Than Earth, Lamont Scientists Find If the outer core was moving at a different rate than the mantle & lithosphere and the inner core this would have come out in the seismographic data. It did not. Further: The observations trump everyone's theoretical ruminations. And of course again to the OP, the Sun is not heating Earth's core and the heat flow is out of the core & not into it. The components involved in generating earthquakes are complex and dynamic and no simplified model -cyclical or otherwise- is sufficient to predict quakes.

I don't care if you were asking me or not. I respond as I care to when I see a question I can answer. If you had read the exchanges before posting you would have found the link and as you apparently missed it I gave it when you asked. The paper says I agree the paper has no evidence and I said before

The paper is available in PDF format here Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration Bobbity gave it in post #22. While I'm here, yesterday I ran across something that emphasizes my point that the Sun's heating of the surface does not travel to the core. Some actual measurements may clarify the issue for Funkenstein. NASA Data Show Earths Deep Ocean Has Not Warmed Mind you I am not implying that the OP has anything to do with climate change, I just wish to show that ocean water heated by the Sun does not transfer heat to the bottom and into oceanic crust then on to core. Therefore earthquakes aren't caused by this heating of the core because the heating of the core does not happen.

In performing this experiment, what -if any- difference will be observed if front-surface mirrors are used as opposed to the commonly available back-surface mirrors?

Here here. While I understand the reticence here over tackling lengthy posts, I think the argument that length alone prohibits undertaking such reading is overplayed. I've read all you've written so far and found your writing rather easy reading and look forward to your pictures. Let's taste some puddin'!

Inasmuch as I find merit in Hofstadter's discussions and experiments with recursion, reflection, and fractalization, and inasmuch as I had to be willing to wade through Hofstadter's verbiage to see that merit, I haven't minded at all reading all of what naturephysic2345 has written so far. Not that I don't have my limits; appealing as Fuller's verbosity & Synergetics was at it's start, enough became enough and I gleefully kicked him to the curb. We shall see what we shall see what we shall see.

I'm not holding my breath for Funkenstein. If you have some experiment you want to lay out I suggest you start a thread on it. There are computer models extant that account for pole shifts and it might be worth your time to seek them out. I may have linked to one here in another thread so you might try searching the forum for 'pole shift' or some such similar terms.

So I read the paper and it strikes me as speculative. I can find nothing on the author's qualifications or any indication that the paper is other than some guy's posting to arXiv. Since it says nothing about heating, to conclude anything about heating without any calculations is unwarranted. I welcome any clarification. But of course this is not what Funkenstein talked about nor has any reference been forthcoming by Funkenstein regarding historical earthquake size or frequency or timing. Let's stay on topic.

This continual stirring of the Outer Core must logically result in some form of frictional heating. How perfectly coy of you. The other thread was too technical huh? I have downloaded the pdf and will read it ASAP. Rest assured that in no case has Freckenstein done any such research nor are his ideas presupposed on any serious studiosity. (Yes I made up that word.) I'll respond to your conclusions after I read the paper.

. Addendum: I should also point out that while most quakes occur on plate boundaries, many don't. The New Madrid quakes of the early 1800s come to mind; they were the largest quakes in the recorded history of the Eastern US and all occurred in Winter in the Northern hemisphere. We are all still waiting for a data source supporting Faultensteins assertions. I don't get the 'T' link to Wiki on Earth as you don't seem to quote from it; care to explain? In any regard, the Sun's gravitational effect on Earth is far far far less than the Moon's. That's why ocean tides are the result not of the Sun, but the Moon. Indeed the Moon does add some heat to the crust through tidal effects. (I quote the exact amount here in some other thread but will have to look for it.) Nevertheless and again and again and again, this heat is not transferred downward to the core. The core's heat flow is up & out. Edit: Here's that reference. AGAIN, this is not heating the core. Edit: According to this source the tidal effect of the Sun on the Earth is 1/2 that of the Moon. Tides @ AstronomyNotes.com Let me say again that this heating is in the crust and oceans and does not heat the core. Does not heat the core. Does not heat the core.

From memory since the Earth takes an elliptical orbit the Sun is closer to the Earth when the Southern Hemisphere is in summer. It might be worth checking this out. I agree, however in the context of my quote that you used this is not what Furkenstein was talking about. I was responding to this: Moreover, he said in post #1 In no case is this correct inasmuch as Winter in the North is Summer in the South and neither autumn or spring are at perihelion or aphelion. (I'll give a reference below to the effect of apsides on temperatures.) So, the again and again and again stands because he is in error both times, while I should have written after it "the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with cause the seasons' temperature extremes. One more again and again; in no case does energy from the Sun heat the core. So here's the effect of our elliptical orbit on temperatures. [bolding mine] Earth's orbit I hope that isn't too technical for you Bobbity. Now that you have picked my nit you are free to address Forkenstine's infestation with a fine toothed comb.

You have been asked several times to share the data you are using and you have not done so. Your assertions are virtually worthless if we cannot see your data. No, no, a thousand times no. The seasons have nothing to do with Earth's distance to the Sun. The only thing that changes with seasons is the angle of incidence for the incoming radiation and that is a result of Earth's tilt. Again and again and again; the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with the seasons. The heat flow of the core is always up, or per se outward. There is no heat from the Sun going down to the core. Word salad with no foundation in fact. New crust is formed at spreading centers and by volcanoes and it gets recycled at subduction zones back down into the mantle. More gobbledygook with no basis in fact. You might begin by studying what is actually known as opposed to going off half-coked with your uninformed idle speculation.

Post 4 is where Fenstein invokes metallicity of molten core. The OP is not about heating of the crust except as to suggest that heating the crust heats the core and causes it to expand which causes earthquakes. Since the whole thing is so much gobbledygook one can only expect garbled meanings. I was referring to Plate Tectonic Mechanism ? thread. I'd stay away if I were you, but when you ignore my admonition and go anyway, put on your boots.

Yes; problem is with the original poster. Yes; Acme is A-OK. I was referring to that part of the core that is 'metallic' per the OP. To further clarify, the heat in the metallic core is not attributable to the Sun by any active means. (Those means include magnetic coupling as proposed here in another thread.) Like physics as is under discussion in another thread, geology is rife with amateur crackpottery. Good grief.

Earthquakes aren't occurring in the core so what do you mean? They are occurring in the top 200 km of crust the Lithosphere. If the Southern Hemisphere has a greater proportion of crustal plates there might be more Earthquakes in the Southern Hemisphere. I doubt if the small difference in air temperature will have any effect on the occurrence of earthquakes. Mr. Bibbitybop I mean Furkenstein is wrong that the Southern hemisphere is warmer than the Northern and that the core is heated by the Sun and that the core is expanding and contracting to cause earthquakes. I don't understand your misunderstanding of my understanding of Farkenstein's misunderstanding.

Nonsense. While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core. Again, no. Recording of earthquakes in the oceans, particularly in the Southern hemisphere is an historically recent occurrence. There simply are no records going back hundreds of years to compare with records of today. No, no, and no. In fact the Northern hemisphere has been found to be getting slightly warmer than the Southern. >> Northern Hemisphere Is Becoming Warmer Than Southern Hemisphere This is atmospheric temperature; the Sun does not heat the core.

I second everything Strange called for so I'll wait to make further comment 'til you answer. However, the above statement is incorrect. When it's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere it's Winter in the Southern Hemisphere and vice versa. Seasons are due to the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the Sun, not Earth's distance from the Sun. Seriously, that's grammar school information.

Arguably what is noise to one may be music to another. In any case this all should have been started in philosophy rather than physics. Energy is well defined in physics and under that defining cannot be created or destroyed. Life therefore does not create energy, it merely transforms it. Energy exists whether or not life exists to prattle about it.

Noise is as noise does. To what end do you make your noise?

Please don't waste our time by creating noise. Disregards, Acme

Done & done. Drivel. No; you were, and remain, wrong about the meaning of drivel. This is an incomplete sentence. You must complete it and do so in a sensible manner that fosters discussion. The above is pure unadulterated drivel. v723 PS Let's compare your drivel to Fuller's drivel. Using the same words as others is one thing, but using their words and ideas as if your own is quite another. Synergetics

Again with insults on my person. Again with nothing on your topic that is of any sensible nature. Please apologize as well as acknowledge that I used drivel correctly and that you were wrong on that matter. m22

Again with the personal attacks. :naughty: Inside-outing is drivel. You haven't defined it and I dare say you can't in any comprehensible or meaningful terms. Unification of Universe is drivel inasmuch as the uni- of universe connotes oneness. Your general thrust seems to be that you have found some pattern in primes and if so just lay it out without all the arcane verbiage. p3