> I tend to disagree with your blase response. I have spent years studying the principles behind my theories. For example, you blow off a well thought out theory with, "the oceans are like dew on an apple."

That's right. Have you compared the depth of the ocean to the radius of the earth?

> Obviously you are not aware of the power of resonance.

Oh but I am. Now can you show that 12 hours is the resonant frequency of the earth?

> Nikola Tesla used a 5lb mechanical oscillator to generate a magnitude 8 earthquake. The same 5lb mechanical oscillator could destroy a 1000 foot tall building through resonance. Nikola Tesla stated himself he could literally split the earth in half with such an oscillator.

Baloney. What great quake did Tesla cause?

> This is no trifle matter, and certainly not worth the "dew on the apple" response. The ocean tides have considerably greater mass than Tesla's mechanical oscillator, and they do ebb and flow in a steady rhythm. 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.

> And, to give you solid proof of the validity of this theory, you can look at any bathymetric map of the world and you will see that indeed, the Nazca Plate is being pushed under the South and Central American Plates, the Juan de Fuca is being pushed under the North American Plate, and the Pacific is being pushed under the South Pacific and Asian Plate.

Generally true for the Pacific but not the Atlantic.

> In fact, right down the middle of the Pacific Ocean, there is a 1000 mile long fissure spreading at the rate of one foot per year,

That sounds a little large but it is one of the driving forces.

> due to the oscillating tides.

But it has nothing to do with the tides.

> Now, you can do better than "dew on the apple." Give me an alternate explanation for the spreading of the Pacific Ocean!

See above. Seafloor spreading, convection cell force from below, subduction "suction" all contribute.

>"Solar energy heating the core? Be serious. It takes forever for energy to get down there." Obviously your just as lacking in an understanding of gamma and other high energy radiation. I'm not talking about infrared radiation, as you are, I'm talking about the really short wavelength stuff.

What makes you think I meant infrared? ANY energy.

> Tides drive plates, as you can see on a bathymetric map, AND convection of magma drives plates. There are multiple forces working on the tectonic structures.

Agreed. And tidal forces are trivial.

> The conventional understanding is that magma is heated over long periods of time. Actually, using the gradual heating method, the earth should, in fact, be solid inside. If the only heat source for the center of the earth were radioactive ores and pressure, the earth would have cooled off billions of years ago.

> Scientists today admit they really don't know what maintains the heat of the interior of our planet. They know that pressure and radioactivity along cannot do it. There just isn't enough energy in the materials present to generate that level of heat for 5 billion years and still be burning strong.

> We know that Mercury is heated from within and that it has a slippery plate tectonics. We know that Venus also has such a plate tectonics system. In fact all planets including the major moons of Jupiter and Saturn appear to have plate tectonics. It is now scientific opinion that the tectonics of Jupiter's and Saturns' moons are caused by tidal and magnetic forces, the exact nature of which scientists are not certain of.

> As an experimenter in high frequency radiation, I'm probably more aware than you are as to its nature. There are many aspects of high frequency radiation that surprise scientists, even today. There are likely to be new discoveries, and I believe, based upon my 3 years observation of solar/geo data, that high frequency radiation is going to be discovered as a major force in heating the internal earth.

I seriously doubt it but as you say, I don't know enough about it to argue the point.

> But once again, before poo pooing the theory, come up with a better explanation. I'm interested in sharing data and theories, and avoiding ignorant statements.

Careful with the inflammatory remarks. I tend to have a low boiling point and I am/was a seismologist (retired now).

> Dave

Roger