Plate tectonics relation to Earthquakes.

[billiards]

They were very schematic diagrams. With the Earth we have a strange situation of a solid core surrounded by molten metal. The core part can move within that molten material. The gravitational attraction of the moon is also pulling the dense core to an offset position within that molten material.

 

Perhaps you should do a bit of reading to build on those schematic diagrams. I do not intend to spoon feed you.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps you should do a bit of reading to build on those schematic diagrams. I do not intend to spoon feed you.

You feel as if you are spoon feeding me! I say the paper is right, you say that it is not correct but can't show why, and I'm trying to help you understand your own thoughts.

[billiards]

You feel as if you are spoon feeding me! I say the paper is right, you say that it is not correct but can't show why, and I'm trying to help you understand your own thoughts.

Hey hey hey calm down ... I said I do not intend to spoon feed you. As far as I'm concerned you can eat what you want. If you think the paper is right, good for you! I personally don't care what you believe, I could see the paper was crank before I finished reading the abstract. Personally I think I understand my own thought slightly better than you understand my thoughts, but that's just my perspective!

[Robittybob1]

Hey hey hey calm down ... I said I do not intend to spoon feed you. As far as I'm concerned you can eat what you want. If you think the paper is right, good for you! I personally don't care what you believe, I could see the paper was crank before I finished reading the abstract. Personally I think I understand my own thought slightly better than you understand my thoughts, but that's just my perspective!

What I believe and what you may have missed is that the seismological data would have indicated the width of the EIC but not necessarily its exact position.

It is so easy just to think it is nicely in the middle, dead center, of the Earth, but the math of the situation clearly shows there is an off center position where the buoyancy matches the gravitational pull from the moon.

I'm stuck but I haven't given up yet.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Conduction of heat from the thermal core of earth, travels from the core to the atmosphere, rather that be the liquid molten core, or the so-called solid core, the transfer of heat is guaranteed. (The solid inner core is said to be as hot as the sun). This heat reaches the surface and atmosphere and interacts with the heat from the Sun.

 

Now the distance of the planet in winter and summer are: 147,098,074 km and 152,097,701 km. In the fall, winter and spring, according to the statistic gathered by USGS, the ratio of earthquakes during these close to sun positions of the planet are 3 times more numerous then in the late spring or summer months.

 

So contraction / expansion of the planet during the difference of the time frames given are a valid proposition. Now we have no true measurement of the circumference of the planet, so through it thermal conduction and it's interacting with the heat of the sun along with perhaps, gravitational or electrical magnetic force, contraction and expansion of the planet even if the scale escapes detection is possible, and therefore earthquakes in the Winters months prevalent.

 

As previously stated what hemisphere or the tilt of the earth is not relevant, since the data shows earthquakes happening all over the planet during the times mostly when the planet is closet to the Sun. Place any substance between these interacting heat sources (Mantle/Crust) and the in between is effected, add the raw material of the crust (some metal or another), along with 70 percent of the planets surface, Water , and contraction and expansion is not only possible but probable.

 

Geology tells me that this planet grows, I suspect through contraction and expansion it also breathes as it were.

[Robittybob1]

....

 

Geology tells me that this planet grows, I suspect through contraction and expansion it also breathes as it were.

That should really get the keyboards rattling. What do you mean by breathing?

what is this about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

 

 

There is an East–West asymmetry^{[clarification needed]} in the inner core seismological data. There is a model which explains this by differences at the surface of the inner core – melting in one hemisphere and crystallization in the other.

is this associated with the off-center displacement?

[arc]

What I believe and what you may have missed is that the seismological data would have indicated the width of the EIC but not necessarily its exact position.

It is so easy just to think it is nicely in the middle, dead center, of the Earth, but the math of the situation clearly shows there is an off center position where the buoyancy matches the gravitational pull from the moon.

I'm stuck but I haven't given up yet.

 

Robittybob1, I believe Billiards is correct. The outer core may be liquid but it is still subject to the pressure of that depth. The density of that liquid iron would be providing large amount of resistance to counter the effects your hypothesis is claiming. Add to this the internal field of the outer core that surrounds the inner core and provides a magnetic resistance to the inner cores movement, a magnetic bearing if you will.

 

Einstein imagined using acceleration to simulate gravity. Maybe an experiment using a heavy ball in several different viscosities of liquids from a very thick to a medium and then a low to provide an idea of what a highly compressed liquid iron outer core would do when subjected to displacement by an inner core.

[Robittybob1]

 

Robittybob1, I believe Billiards is correct. The outer core may be liquid but it is still subject to the pressure of that depth. The density of that liquid iron would be providing large amount of resistance to counter the effects your hypothesis is claiming. Add to this the internal field of the outer core that surrounds the inner core and provides a magnetic resistance to the inner cores movement, a magnetic bearing if you will.

 

Einstein imagined using acceleration to simulate gravity. Maybe an experiment using a heavy ball in several different viscosities of liquids from a very thick to a medium and then a low to provide an idea of what a highly compressed liquid iron outer core would do when subjected to displacement by an inner core.

I like the idea of setting up the mechanical experiment and I have drawn a little diagram and it certainly could be built. It would be so good if the liquid was able to be polarized to represent a current. Imagine if it produced a magnetic field in the inner ball!

[Strange]

In the fall, winter and spring, according to the statistic gathered by USGS, the ratio of earthquakes during these close to sun positions of the planet are 3 times more numerous then in the late spring or summer months.

 

As you consistently refuse to provide any data to support this, I assume it is not true.

 

 

Geology tells me that this planet grows

 

No it doesn't.

[StringJunky]

There are a couple of guys that think the core is off-centred to explain the east-west difference... but not due to gravitational effects. I can't find the relevant part now about it not being caused by gravity.

 

Abstract:

 

In a first approximation, the Earth's interior has an isotropic structure with a spherical symmetry. Over the last decades the geophysical observations have revealed, at different spatial scales, the existence of several perturbations from this basic structure. In this paper we discuss the hemispheric perturbations induced to this basic structure if the inner core is displaced from the center of mass of the Earth. Using numerical simulations of the observed hemispheric asymmetry of the seismic waves traveling through the upper inner core, with faster arrival times and higher attenuation in the Eastern Hemisphere, we estimate that the present position of the inner core is shifted by tens of kilometers from the Earth's center eastward in the equatorial plane. If the only forces acting on the inner core were the gravitational forces, then its equilibrium position would be at the Earth's center and the estimated displacement would not be possible. We conjecture that, due to interactions with the flow and the magnetic field inside the outer core, the inner core is in a permanent chaotic motion. To support this hypothesis we analyze more than ten different geophysical phenomena consistent with an inner core motion dominated by time scales from hundreds to thousands of years.

 

Geophysical implications of a decentered inner core - arxiv

 

 

Abstract

 

In a first approximation the Earth's interior has an isotropic structure with a spherical symmetry. Over the last decades the geophysical observations have revealed, at different spatial scales, the existence of several perturbations from this basic structure. Some of them are situated in the neighborhood of the inner core boundary (ICB). One of the best documented perturbations is the asymmetry at the top of the inner core (ATIC) characterized by faster seismic wave velocity in the eastern hemisphere than in the western hemisphere. All existing explanations are based on a hemispheric variation of the material properties near ICB inside the inner core. Using numerical simulations of the seismic ray propagation, we show that the ATIC can be explained as well by the displacement of the inner core towards east in the equatorial plane tens of kilometers from the Earth's center, without modifying the spherical symmetry in the upper inner core. The hypothesis of a displaced inner core is also sustained by other observed hemispheric asymmetries at the top of the inner core and at the bottom of the outer core. A displaced inner core would have major implications for many mechanical, thermal, and magnetic phenomena in the Earth's interior.

 

Seismic hemispheric asymmetry induced by Earth's inner core decentering - arxiv

 

 

Edit: See bolded in first abstract that gravitational effects are not suggested to cause decentering.

Edited October 30, 2014 by StringJunky

[billiards]

There are a couple of guys that think the core is off-centred to explain the east-west difference... but not due to gravitational effects. I can't find the relevant part now about it not being caused by gravity.

 

Abstract:

 

In a first approximation, the Earth's interior has an isotropic structure with a spherical symmetry. Over the last decades the geophysical observations have revealed, at different spatial scales, the existence of several perturbations from this basic structure. In this paper we discuss the hemispheric perturbations induced to this basic structure if the inner core is displaced from the center of mass of the Earth. Using numerical simulations of the observed hemispheric asymmetry of the seismic waves traveling through the upper inner core, with faster arrival times and higher attenuation in the Eastern Hemisphere, we estimate that the present position of the inner core is shifted by tens of kilometers from the Earth's center eastward in the equatorial plane. If the only forces acting on the inner core were the gravitational forces, then its equilibrium position would be at the Earth's center and the estimated displacement would not be possible. We conjecture that, due to interactions with the flow and the magnetic field inside the outer core, the inner core is in a permanent chaotic motion. To support this hypothesis we analyze more than ten different geophysical phenomena consistent with an inner core motion dominated by time scales from hundreds to thousands of years.

 

Geophysical implications of a decentered inner core - arxiv

 

 

Abstract

 

In a first approximation the Earth's interior has an isotropic structure with a spherical symmetry. Over the last decades the geophysical observations have revealed, at different spatial scales, the existence of several perturbations from this basic structure. Some of them are situated in the neighborhood of the inner core boundary (ICB). One of the best documented perturbations is the asymmetry at the top of the inner core (ATIC) characterized by faster seismic wave velocity in the eastern hemisphere than in the western hemisphere. All existing explanations are based on a hemispheric variation of the material properties near ICB inside the inner core. Using numerical simulations of the seismic ray propagation, we show that the ATIC can be explained as well by the displacement of the inner core towards east in the equatorial plane tens of kilometers from the Earth's center, without modifying the spherical symmetry in the upper inner core. The hypothesis of a displaced inner core is also sustained by other observed hemispheric asymmetries at the top of the inner core and at the bottom of the outer core. A displaced inner core would have major implications for many mechanical, thermal, and magnetic phenomena in the Earth's interior.

 

Seismic hemispheric asymmetry induced by Earth's inner core decentering - arxiv

 

 

Edit: See bolded in first abstract that gravitational effects are not suggested to cause decentering.

 

Good find. Certainly the quality of this work is significantly better than the previous arXiv paper! I guess it's a shame this hasn't made it past peer review, which does raise questions.... One question I have with this is that the modelled PKIKP residuals vary smoothly with epicentral distance, however, I think the observations show a sharp change in the residual. Also this paper does not bother to model normal modes, which really would be necessary to "seal the deal".

 

One might be interested to read a recent (and surprisingly concise) review of inner core observations:

 

Deuss, A. (2014). Heterogeneity and Anisotropy of Earth's Inner Core. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42(1), 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054658

[Robittybob1]

There are a couple of guys that think the core is off-centred to explain the east-west difference... but not due to gravitational effects. I can't find the relevant part now about it not being caused by gravity.

 

Abstract:

 

If the only forces acting on the inner core were the gravitational forces, then its equilibrium position would be at the Earth's center and the estimated displacement would not be possible.

Geophysical implications of a decentered inner core - arxiv

 

 

Edit: See bolded in first abstract that gravitational effects are not suggested to cause decentering.

I haven't got time to paw through the articles right now but if the word "Moon" does not appear in the article not all the gravitational effects have been considered adequately.

[StringJunky]

billiards, on 30 Oct 2014 - 5:23 PM, said:

 

Good find. Certainly the quality of this work is significantly better than the previous arXiv paper! I guess it's a shame this hasn't made it past peer review, which does raise questions.... One question I have with this is that the modelled PKIKP residuals vary smoothly with epicentral distance, however, I think the observations show a sharp change in the residual. Also this paper does not bother to model normal modes, which really would be necessary to "seal the deal".

 

One might be interested to read a recent (and surprisingly concise) review of inner core observations:

 

Deuss, A. (2014). Heterogeneity and Anisotropy of Earth's Inner Core. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42(1), 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054658

I'm just a novice in science, so, does it need to be in a journal to show that it has been peer-reviewed?

 

Your reference is behind a pay-wall unfortunately. I can't find an open access version.

[Robittybob1]

I haven't got time to paw through the articles right now but if the word "Moon" does not appear in the article not all the gravitational effects have been considered adequately.

The word Moon appears once in the article.

 

The rotation period of the Earth is not uniform, but

varies on time scales from days to millennia [32]. The

tidal drag of the Moon and Sun on the rotating Earth

produces a secular slowing down of the rotation

So the gravitational effects of the Moon on the EIC do not appear to have been considered.

 

we estimate that the present position of the inner core is shifted by tens of

kilometers from the Earth’s center eastward in the equatorial plane. If the only forces acting on the

inner core were the gravitational forces, then its equilibrium position would be at the Earth’s center

and the estimated displacement would not be possible

Can anyone explain why they thought it was "Eastward in the equatorial plane"? What is East of the center on one side is West of the center on the other side of the Earth. I'm a bit confused.

 

There is an "Appendix A" section dealing with the history. Barta in the 1970 first proposed it to be off center ... . I might have to tackle it from the history first to get used to the jargon used, not being into this realm of physics covered in the paper.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Robittybob1

[arc]

I like the idea of setting up the mechanical experiment and I have drawn a little diagram and it certainly could be built. It would be so good if the liquid was able to be polarized to represent a current. Imagine if it produced a magnetic field in the inner ball!

 

Yes, the experimentation is the best part of this kind of stuff. You may not need to get to complicated with this. The acceleration that would simulate a gravitational pull on the heavy ball in a thick liquid would need to maintain an adequate acceleration in one direction for a long enough of a time to overcome the fluid's viscosity. With the moon continually orbiting, the direction of force applied on the inner core is continually changing, so it would seem to me the outer core probably would not have time to yield. The tides happen because the ocean only needs to displace the atmosphere, which it does without difficulty. It is the gravity of the Earth, after all, that is the tides primary adversary. But the outer core material would additionally need to simultaneously fill the developing void on the other side of the inner core - outer core boundary, which again requires adequate time and duration of force for the outer core to reconfigure. If the Earth was accelerating in one direction or the moon was pulling the outer core in one direction for an adequate amount of time the outer core, I'm sure, would yield. But that is not happening now or ever will in my opinion.

 

edit to clarify.

Edited October 31, 2014 by arc

[Robittybob1]

 

Yes, the experimentation is the best part of this kind of stuff. You may not need to get to complicated with this. The acceleration that would simulate a gravitational pull on the heavy ball in a thick liquid would need to maintain an adequate acceleration in one direction for a long enough of a time to overcome the fluid's viscosity. With the moon continually orbiting, the direction of force applied on the inner core is continually changing, so it would seem to me the outer core probably would not have time to yield. The tides happen because the ocean only needs to displace the atmosphere, which it does without difficulty. It is the gravity of the Earth, after all, that is the tides primary adversary. But the outer core material would additionally need to simultaneously fill the developing void on the other side of the inner core - outer core boundary, which again requires adequate time and duration of force for the outer core to reconfigure. If the Earth was accelerating in one direction or the moon was pulling it in one direction for an adequate amount of time the outer core, I'm sure, would yield.

It is interesting to read that. Thanks arc. The dimensions of the EOC are quite large and I don't see much trouble in having the EIC off set by 60 km. The velocity that the liquid would have to undergo would only be a fraction faster than stationary. One thing that surprises me is that the Bernoulli and Venturi effects have not been applied, the flow of the EOC liquid would help to draw the EIC off center. Now that is a weird one if it did work for it seems to happen in small scale experiments. The molten metal was said to have a viscosity less than water. It surprised me when I read that but I have had no experience with molten metals to confirm that.

Try this experiment (a variation of the one described earlier):

In this experiment you have a bowl of water and stir it gently to get a good clean circulation and instead of the tin of peaches placed off-center you used another smaller cylindrical container in the middle part-filled with water so that it is still floating but only just missing the bottom, you might find that the laminar flow through the venturi side of the off-center middle object draws it toward the outer wall of the large bowl.

 

Consider this: Will the same effect happen to the EIC if was off-center?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Robittybob1

[arc]

It is interesting to read that. Thanks arc. The dimensions of the EOC are quite large and I don't see much trouble in having the EIC off set by 60 km. The velocity that the liquid would have to undergo would only be a fraction faster than stationary. One thing that surprises me is that the Bernoulli and Venturi effects have not been applied, the flow of the EOC liquid would help to draw the EIC off center. Now that is a weird one if it did work for it seems to happen in small scale experiments. The molten metal was said to have a viscosity less than water. It surprised me when I read that but I have had no experience with molten metals to confirm that.

Try this experiment (a variation of the one described earlier):

In this experiment you have a bowl of water and stir it gently to get a good clean circulation and instead of the tin of peaches placed off-center you used another smaller cylindrical container in the middle part-filled with water so that it is still floating but only just missing the bottom, you might find that the laminar flow through the venturi side of the off-center middle object draws it toward the outer wall of the large bowl.

 

Consider this: Will the same effect happen to the EIC if was off-center?

 

OOPS! I ended that post in haste, and came back and edited without checking for your post. Well, no harm done.

 

I'm really stuck on the outer core/inner core being under incredible pressure and not having the freedom of movement that you are implying. I'm not completely fixed about this but the extreme pressure and the confinement by the magnetic field would seem in line with what is expected. Could a inner core of around 1.7 % of one Earth mass move that much and not be shaking the planet?

[Robittybob1]

 

OOPS! I ended that post in haste, and came back and edited without checking for your post. Well, no harm done.

 

I'm really stuck on the outer core/inner core being under incredible pressure and not having the freedom of movement that you are implying. I'm not completely fixed about this but the extreme pressure and the confinement by the magnetic field would seem in line with what is expected. Could a inner core of around 1.7 % of one Earth mass move that much and not be shaking the planet?

They are all good questions and I think it will only come right when we can put some figures on it. The EIC is similar density to the EOC so when one moves in one direction a similar volume of material fills the space. If they were perfect spheres and they moved by 60 km we should be able to work out how much mass is moved. The shaking of the planet is only as much shaking as the moon causes now, it feels like it would be no additional shaking. If it pulled the EIC to a constant 60 km and it stays tidally pulled toward the Moon and the fluid flowed around it laminarly, things would be pretty stable.

It might be a different situation if the EOC thickened and the EIC stayed locked into an off-center position that rotated daily, then we would be like an out of balance washing machine on spin cycle.

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.

Where I say "crustal plates" I mean the ones that form the ocean floors composed of "basalt". Even though the Earth has something like 70% covered by ocean plates none are more than 200 million years old and the rates of movement mean they have been newly formed. The movement of these plates will be the source of the majority of Earths earthquakes ( proportion times the rapidity of movement equal frequent earthquakes).

The ocean crusts are thinner than the continental crust so the Moon and Sun will b flexing the ocean floor to a greater extent. (That is just logical but I can't recall any study on it.) I might have to see if I can confirm that.

Where that paper says "the EIC has an eccentricity of 60 km", what is an eccentricity? Is it the amplitude or twice the amplitude? Mabe it is only offset 30 km one way then 30 the other way so the two amplitudes add to 60 km? Orbital eccentricities are just a ratio and have no dimensions but here he gives a distance so why does it get called eccentricity?

"3. Physics The distance between the center of an eccentric and its axis." so if that is the definition it is like wave height measured from zero point, rather than two amplitudes added together.

 

Martin Wolf said

...The result is an eccentricity of about 60 km to produce this nutation. ...The detail that B dominates over G near the center is the main cause for the fact that EIC cannot be in the center. ...

[billiards]

... if the word "Moon" does not appear in the article not all the gravitational effects have been considered adequately.

I have a problem with this.

 

I guess preface it with "According to Robittybob1 ...". End it with: "However, Robittybob1 apparently does not understand the nature of tidal forces. Indeed, tidal forces are not capable of displacing the inner core relative to the bulk Earth and therefore can be safely neglected."

[Robittybob1]

I have a problem with this.

 

I guess preface it with "According to Robittybob1 ...". End it with: "However, Robittybob1 apparently does not understand the nature of tidal forces. Indeed, tidal forces are not capable of displacing the inner core relative to the bulk Earth and therefore can be safely neglected."

I'm trying to devise an experiment to see who is right? I don't think the issue should just be won or dismissed on words.

The Moon creates an ocean tidal bulge on the Earth and it is the gravitational pull between that bulge and the moon that makes the Moon accelerate.

Now if at the crest of that tidal bulge was an ocean liner of enormous mass would the Moon be trying to pull it through the water?

The liner has it buoyancy issues dealt with, it displaces the exact amount of water as it weighs so there is not more mass involved but just that the ship is able to move forward toward the Moon as one piece. Will it tend to move toward the Moon? Well the tidal bulge moves forward, but will the ship move?

The bulge is like a wave, the wave moves forward, the water moves forward too I believe, but only by a small amount. Will the ship move further than the water buoying it up?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I'm trying to devise an experiment to see who is right? I don't think the issue should just be won or dismissed on words.

The Moon creates an ocean tidal bulge on the Earth and it is the gravitational pull between that bulge and the moon that makes the Moon accelerate.

Now if at the crest of that tidal bulge was an ocean liner of enormous mass would the Moon be trying to pull it through the water?

The liner has it buoyancy issues dealt with, it displaces the exact amount of water as it weighs so there is not more mass involved but just that the ship is able to move forward toward the Moon as one piece. Will it tend to move toward the Moon? Well the tidal bulge moves forward, but will the ship move?

The bulge is like a wave, the wave moves forward, the water moves forward too I believe, but only by a small amount. Will the ship move further than the water buoying it up?

I have been thinking on this one for a few hours now and I would think if the ship could be made more massive without displacing even more water, the Moon would pull it forward. But that is hard to demonstrate for anytime you added weight to the ship it just displaces extra water.

[Robittybob1]

I have been thinking on this one for a few hours now and I would think if the ship could be made more massive without displacing even more water, the Moon would pull it forward. But that is hard to demonstrate for anytime you added weight to the ship it just displaces extra water.

Does no one understand the thought experiment?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

To me it's without question that seismology may very well be wrong, in considering what they don't know, like rather the innermost core is really solid or fluid or fluid like, moving or at a stand still. I find it hard to give them much credence outside of recording a earthquake, I also cant grasp what they claim is the cause of earthquakes.

 

The part where these two plates meet, and at the meeting point, this pressure builds on the "hinges" (Jagged edges of the individual plates) and then eventually the hinges unhinged, the plates buckle and an earthquake commence. I suspect that the force of these two plates meeting would merely sheer each other off, no hinges period, therefore no buckling. We talking pressure unmeasured here

 

It is more reasonable and logical to state that contraction and expansion is the cause of earthquakes, and again this mainly happens when the planet is in close proximity to the Sun

 

Even if the inner core is stable the outer core is constantly in flux, this flux must be in conjunction with the planet as a whole, since all the planets cores plates and crust work as one together. By again pure proximity of the so-called liquid core and hard inner core., So therefore the inner core's are indeed in motion.

 

Cling to the books gentleman, but allow your mind to circumference the question freely..

Edited November 2, 2014 by Dr. Funkenstein

[Robittybob1]

To me it's without question that seismology may very well be wrong, in considering what they don't know, like rather the innermost core is really solid or fluid or fluid like, moving or at a stand still. I find it hard to give them much credence outside of recording a earthquake, I also cant grasp what they claim is the cause of earthquakes.

 

The part where these two plates meet, and at the meeting point, this pressure builds on the "hinges" (Jagged edges of the individual plates) and then eventually the hinges unhinged, the plates buckle and an earthquake commence. I suspect that the force of these two plates meeting would merely sheer each other off, no hinges period, therefore no buckling. We talking pressure unmeasured here

 

It is more reasonable and logical to state that contraction and expansion is the cause of earthquakes, and again this mainly happens when the planet is in close proximity to the Sun

 

Even if the inner core is stable the outer core is constantly in flux, this flux must be in conjunction with the planet as a whole, since all the planets cores plates and crust work as one together. By again pure proximity of the so-called liquid core and hard inner core., So therefore the inner core's are indeed in motion.

 

Cling to the books gentleman, but allow your mind to circumference the question freely..

It is a shame you don't converse with the other contributors of the thread.

[billiards]

To me it's without question that seismology may very well be wrong, in considering what they don't know, like rather the innermost core is really solid or fluid or fluid like, moving or at a stand still. I find it hard to give them much credence outside of recording a earthquake, I also cant grasp what they claim is the cause of earthquakes.

 

The part where these two plates meet, and at the meeting point, this pressure builds on the "hinges" (Jagged edges of the individual plates) and then eventually the hinges unhinged, the plates buckle and an earthquake commence. I suspect that the force of these two plates meeting would merely sheer each other off, no hinges period, therefore no buckling. We talking pressure unmeasured here

 

It is more reasonable and logical to state that contraction and expansion is the cause of earthquakes, and again this mainly happens when the planet is in close proximity to the Sun

 

Even if the inner core is stable the outer core is constantly in flux, this flux must be in conjunction with the planet as a whole, since all the planets cores plates and crust work as one together. By again pure proximity of the so-called liquid core and hard inner core., So therefore the inner core's are indeed in motion.

 

Cling to the books gentleman, but allow your mind to circumference the question freely..

More soapboxing, I'm pretty sure there are forum rules against this sort of thing. Has this guy ever even read a book?