>> Have you compared the depth of the ocean to the radius of the earth?

> Yes, but does that mean the oceans do not exist? What's your point?

The point is that the oceans are such a thin film that they cannot have the effect you think.

>> Now can you show that 12 hours is the resonant frequency of the earth?

> Possibly, can you?

Like you, my library is packed away. I can tell you that a great quake is capable of exciting the earth's fundamental mode, causing it to ring like a bell (as the saying goes).

> Look at a bathymetric map of the ocean floor. Explain to me how billions of tons of water are not the explanation for the subduction zones around the entire Pacific Ocean.

Because they are trivial compared to the actual forces driving the plate forward and pulling the subducting edge downward.

> As it happens, and I'm stunned that you're not aware of it, but there are 10km wave crests within the ocean. Forget about surface waves. These extra long waves are the result of daily tidal movement. Take a long wave and alter the wavelength until it resonates with the volume of the container and you can see some serious stuff. Every now and then, the sun and moon do line up in such a way as to alter these internal waves to cause freak surface waves, and possibly pressure nodes that beat down on the ocean floor.

Oooh! a ripple in the thin film. I'm not impressed.

>> Baloney. What great quake did Tesla cause?
> You can read the relavent portions at this book review...
http://www.optimalhosting.com/physics/21/Nikola_Tesla_Earthquake_Machine.htm

Did that. It says he caused a building to vibrate enough to be noticed elsewhere. Nothing about a great quake.

> I'm not near my Tesla library right now, but I can pull up an exact date with references to newspaper articles from the time period if it becomes a major issue.

I can tell you without even looking there has never been a great quake in that area.

>>> Given enough time with the correct solar and lunar declinations and the correct solar and lunar altitudes, the volume of the Pacific Ocean can oscillate in such a manner as to place excessive stress near the shores of the Pacific Ocean.

>>Possibly as a weak trigger but not as a causative force.

> Weak trigger? I thought you knew resonance? A weak trigger is all that is necessary. I didn't state, nor did I imply that the oceans moved the plates in leaps and bounds on a daily or millennial basis. And talk about weak triggers, how much energy is released by the oceans beating the plate boundaries every day compared to the amount of energy released by occasional earthquakes? Earthquakes are nothing more than shivers compared to the accumulated daily force exerted by the tides. And yes, internal earth convection adds significant energy to the plates. But have you done the math? Where does the internal energy come from to completely churn the earth's crust hundreds of times over through billions of years? There is no doubt, just on this observation alone, that the sun provides most of this internal energy.

There is EVERY doubt about it. I challenge you to provide any evidence that solar energy plays any part in the process.

> Even algae ultimately affect earthquakes in some way.

You're taking chaos theory too seriously.

> It is the cumulative effort, of all forces that cause the ground to shake at certain times. Earthquakes are not isolated events separate from the rest of the earth or the solar system.

Ok, a ton of accumulated strain and a gram of tidal forces.

> Careful about blowing me off. As you now know, I have lots of patience and will demand as much in a response as I put into a proposition, especially from experts in the field.

Demand away. That's what we're here for, to advance the understanding of all.

> I'm here for science, not to be treated as an outcast simply because I have new ideas.

They aren't new ideas, sorry.

Roger