>Look at the scale. On one hand, a very thin film of water. On the other, 1800 miles of solid rock.

To begin with, you are a liar. There is not 1800 miles of solid rock under our feet. If there were, no convection could possibly take place. The mere fact that there are numerous lava pools just below the surface of the crust all over the globe should demonstrate that quite clearly.

This is where your seismology background is failing you and keeping the scientific community in darkness. If the water on the surface of the earth were static, then I would agree. However, the mass of the water is insignificant. The water is being sloshed around by energy received from gravitational energy received from the sun and moon. The water acts as a conductor of gravitational energy from outside the planet. The energy of the oceans does not come from the thin layer of water, it comes from the sun and moon.

Think of this, a piece of copper wire does no work of itself. But hook it up to a power source and the copper can conduct a whole bunch of practically weightless electrons and make them do lots of useful work. You could argue with me that it is impossible because the copper isn't powerful enough to do work with weightless electrons but I think you would quickly see the folly of such an argument. After the "experts" pooh poohed Nikola Tesla for 11 years he finally built a motor on his own and proved the experts dead wrong. Look at the power harnessed by the "impossible" motor in our society today.

The mass of the water is not the source of tidal energy. It is the conductor of gravitational energy from the sun and moon. And there is lots of gravitational energy to go around.

>It says most of the dissipation is within the oceans, involving moving the water around. Some gets transferred to the edges (shores) but that's a horizontal force.

Are you really that dense, or are you playing with me? If you shift a billion gallons of water from point A to point B, you're telling me that there will be no additional force exerted on point B? And you're telling me that what little force is exerted on point B is horizontal? If you really believe that, you are a real idiot. And you would've obviously failed in physics when you graduated with your seismology degree.

A tidal force has a vector. If we look at the vector with two degrees of freedom, the vertical degree (x) between the ocean floor and the sky, and the horizontal degree (y) along the line of the tide going in and the tide going out, then we can call this tide (x,y).

Increased vertical pressure, and tides flowing toward shore are positive.

During the time when the tide is near the shore (x) will remain more or less constant. When the tide is flowing in it's value is (x,y). When the tide is flowing out it's value is nearly but not quite (x,-y). The absolute value of (-y) is actually a little less than the absolute value of (y) due to the friction loss of the shore. The sum of the vectors is then nearly 2x. There was some horizontal energy transfered to the shore but most of the gravitational energy is transfered to the ocean floor.

When the tidal mass moves off of the area for which (x) was measured, there is a (-x) value place on the ocean floor. The constant cycling between (2x) and (-x) has a frequency equal to the timing of the tides with a net downward push. This rocking back and forth, although minute compared to the life of a human, is a powerful force that drives the Pacific, Nazca, and Juan de Fuca Plates under the adjacent continents.

This constant resonating system is no different in principle than Nikola Tesla's five pound mechanical oscillators that shook buildings and the neighborhood surrounding his laboratory. The relatively light oceans compare to the relatively light mechanical oscillator. The relatively massive tectonic plates compare to the relatively massive building and surrounding neighborhood. It is not only possible, IT IS the primary force driving the tectonics on our planet today.

The problem with seismology is that most of the work is done with Hertzian type measurements. Ground waves are measured as though they were a radiating sine wave. This may work fine for calculating the magnitude and distance of earthquakes, but this type of frequency work is not suitable to understanding tectonic plate movements.

Resonance is different from radiation. In resonance energy is accumulated. In radiation energy is dispersed. The pounding effect of the tides with a regular beat has the effect of storing gravitational energy in the plate just as a high voltage oscillator stores electricity as an electrostatic charge.

In a high voltage oscillator when the electrostatic charge overloads and erupts we get a lightning bolt thus releasing some of the accumulated tension. When the stored gravitational energy reaches its limit in the faults separating tectonic plates, it erupts as an earthquake and thus releases some of the accumulated tension.

It's as clear as day, Roger and Canie. The math is there. The model is coherent and the entire process can be reduced to numbers. It is conceivable that if accurate values could be attributed to the energy transfers between the sun/moon, tides, and tectonic plates, and accurate values given to the "dielectric strength" of faults, we could accurately forecast earthquakes based on the amount of calculated stored tidal energy.

You guys really need to open your minds to this. It is the seismology of the future. And instead of being "Archie Bunkers" about it you could be picking up the ball and running with this. You have a great opportunity for expanding your field, don't pass it by.

Dave