Plate tectonics relation to Earthquakes.

[Robittybob1]

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.

Fair enough, but when you look at the physics of a rotating Earth with the Inner Core always displaced 60 km toward the Moon or the Moon and the Sun (combined) I was able to demonstrate with a simple experiment how the Inner Core ends up rotating faster than the whole Earth and the Outer Core moves slower than the whole Earth (the bulk of the mass being in the Mantle and the Lithosphere).

From the motions of the masses and liquids it was possible to see why the Earth's magnetic field is established, but I could not see the mechanism why there would be pole reversals, so the concept still had faults.

From the motions of the masses and liquids it would be possible to see how heat is generated, for the work done in the core is at the expense of the earth's angular momentum, with the early Earth spinning considerably faster than it is today.

 

We will have to wait till Funkenstein responds then.

[Acme]

Fair enough, but when you look at the physics of a rotating Earth with the Inner Core always displaced 60 km toward the Moon or the Moon and the Sun (combined) I was able to demonstrate with a simple experiment how the Inner Core ends up rotating faster than the whole Earth and the Outer Core moves slower than the whole Earth (the bulk of the mass being in the Mantle and the Lithosphere).

From the motions of the masses and liquids it was possible to see why the Earth's magnetic field is established, but I could not see the mechanism why there would be pole reversals, so the concept still had faults.

From the motions of the masses and liquids it would be possible to see how heat is generated, for the work done in the core is at the expense of the earth's angular momentum, with the early Earth spinning considerably faster than it is today.

 

We will have to wait till Funkenstein responds then.

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.

[billiards]

Fair enough, but when you look at the physics of a rotating Earth with the Inner Core always displaced 60 km toward the Moon or the Moon and the Sun (combined) I was able to demonstrate with a simple experiment how the Inner Core ends up rotating faster than the whole Earth and the Outer Core moves slower than the whole Earth (the bulk of the mass being in the Mantle and the Lithosphere).

The problem here is that the inner core is not displaced 60 km toward the Moon (and/or the Sun).

[Robittybob1]

The problem here is that the inner core is not displaced 60 km toward the Moon (and/or the Sun).

Can you prove that? Can you show that that study was wrong?

[billiards]

Can you prove that? Can you show that that study was wrong?

 

Which study claimed the 60 km inner core displacement?

 

I have seen no study claim it. I cannot show a study wrong that does not exist. Please provide the citation.

[Acme]

Which study claimed the 60 km inner core displacement?

 

I have seen no study claim it. I cannot show a study wrong that does not exist. Please provide the citation.

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

Using 2005-2013 data from the Argo buoys, NASAs Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites and GRACE satellites, scientists found that deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

 

The cold waters of Earths deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

 

Scientists at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. ...

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.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Acme

[billiards]

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.

 

 

Acme, I know you intend well, but I was not asking you.

 

Besides, that "paper" contains no evidence to support the claim that the inner core is displaced from the centre. Nor do any of the papers in the references section of said paper.

[Acme]

Acme, I know you intend well, but I was not asking you.

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.

 

Besides, that "paper" contains no evidence to support the claim that the inner core is displaced from the centre. Nor do any of the papers in the references section of said paper.

The paper says

...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. ...

I agree the paper has no evidence and I said before

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. ...

[Robittybob1]

 

Acme, I know you intend well, but I was not asking you.

 

Besides, that "paper" contains no evidence to support the claim that the inner core is displaced from the centre. Nor do any of the papers in the references section of said paper.

It is a basic physical concept as far as I can see. It is the physical attraction between the Earth's Inner Core (EIC) and the Moon. Just like the Moon creates tide and land tides, it also moves the core. Because the core is in a weightless situation and surrounded by very liquid molten metal it is able to move these distances according to those calculations.

They might be wrong but has anyone of note said they were wrong?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Robittybob1

[billiards]

I don't care if you were asking me or not.

 

OK, but FYI I had read the previous correspondence and that paper, so your post was not helping me.

 

It is a basic physical concept as far as I can see. It is the physical attraction between the Earth's Inner Core (EIC) and the Moon. Just like the Moon creates tide and land tides, it also moves the core. Because the core is in a weightless situation and surrounded by very liquid molten metal it is able to move these distances according to those calculations.

They might be wrong but has anyone of note said they were wrong?

 

Are you the author of this paper?

 

The core is dense and therefore negatively buoyant. It is gravitationally unstable for it to be offset from the centre of the Earth. Tidal force do not change this situation.

 

There is no observational evidence to support the offset hypothesis -- unless you can show me some (I'm waiting).

 

Nobody of "any note" would waste time on this.

[Robittybob1]

 

OK, but FYI I had read the previous correspondence and that paper, so your post was not helping me.

 

 

Are you the author of this paper?

 

The core is dense and therefore negatively buoyant. It is gravitationally unstable for it to be offset from the centre of the Earth. Tidal force do not change this situation.

 

There is no observational evidence to support the offset hypothesis -- unless you can show me some (I'm waiting).

 

Nobody of "any note" would waste time on this.

Are you saying the physics was wrong? Negatively buoyant means denser than the Outer core does it? No I'm not the author.

You are thinking in terms where it is like a boat on the water but from the very center it is weightless for there is no gravity acting on it until it gets off center, and it will move to an off center position till the gravitational forces balance. Well that is how I remember the logic of it.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

OK [Acme], but FYI I had read the previous correspondence and that paper, so your post was not helping me.

Then I fail to understand why you said:

Which study claimed the 60 km inner core displacement? I have seen no study claim it.

Fair enough, but when you look at the physics of a rotating Earth with the Inner Core always displaced 60 km toward the Moon or the Moon and the Sun (combined) I was able to demonstrate with a simple experiment how the Inner Core ends up rotating faster than the whole Earth and the Outer Core moves slower than the whole Earth (the bulk of the mass being in the Mantle and the Lithosphere).

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

{from 1996}

SCIENTISTS at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found that the Earth's inner core is rotating faster than the planet itself.

 

The motion of the inner core has never before been detected or measured. The finding, reported July 1in the journal Nature, will likely advance understanding of how the Earth's magnetic field is created and why it reverses periodically; how heat flows through the planet, and how the Earth's multi-layered interior has evolved.

 

The inner core rotates in the same direction as the Earth and slightly faster, completing its once-a-day rotation about two-thirds of a second faster than the entire Earth.

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:

... "For decades, the motion of the inner core has been the realm of theoreticians," Dr. Richards said in an interview. "For the first time, we have a hard piece of observational evidence, an actual measurement, of what's happening down there."

...

More recent studies also indicate that the "fast-track axis" is not exactly north-south but is tilted slightly from the axis around which the Earth is rotating. The core's "fast axis" would emerge at an imaginary point on Earth's surface up to 10 degrees from the north pole, where the spin axis would emerge.

 

The Earth and the core are rotating on the same spin axis, but because the inner core rotates just a bit faster than the planet as a whole, the "fast axis" through the core moves eastward. Over the years, it traces a circular path around the north pole and moves to different positions relative to the Earth's mantle and crust. This basic feature allowed the Lamont scientists to make their discovery.

...

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.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

... 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.

All I can say is that there were studies that showed the outer core was moving slower than the Earth's rotation. I would have linked to them in the Physics Forum thread discussing the Earth's magnetic field.

 

So I wanted to see what sort of situation gives you this fast and slow combination.

Demonstration: Get large circular bowl and fill with water to about 75 mm deep, get a heavy cylindrical shape (Tin of peaches for example)

Sprinkle pepper in the water so you can monitor flow patterns.

Stir the water so it circulates in the large basin/bowl - this represents the spinning Earth, now

1. put the tin in the middle and observe the flow.

2. Put the tin off center and observe the flow pattern.

 

Try it and tell me what difference the off center central mass makes please?

 

Now this Q&A gives a clue and a link to a paper.

http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/402/why-does-earths-outer-core-rotate-in-the-opposite-direction-to-the-inner-core

 

 

So what's really going on? It's simple, conceptually. The mantle, outer core, and inner core all rotate in more or less the same direction and at more or less the same rate. However, because outer core is liquid, there exists a possibility for the mantle, outer core, and inner core to exhibit slightly different rotation rates (and perhaps even rotation axes). That's apparently what is happening inside the Earth. The mantle and crust make one rotation per sidereal day. The inner core currently rotates a tiny, tiny bit faster than that, while the outer core rotates a tiny, tiny bit slower than that.

This means that when viewed from the perspective of an Earth-fixed observer, the outer core currently appears to be rotating a tiny, tiny bit westward and the inner core currently appears to be rotating a tiny, tiny bit eastward. It's a matter of perhaps confusing perspective. When viewed from an inertial perspective, the mantle, outer core, and inner core are all rotating more or less synchronously.

You can tell me if you agree now that you have done your little experiment.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

All I can say is that there were studies that showed the outer core was moving slower than the Earth's rotation. I would have linked to them in the Physics Forum thread discussing the Earth's magnetic field.

As you should have seen from what I just posted, this is not the case.

 

So I wanted to see what sort of situation gives you this fast and slow combination.

Demonstration: Get large circular bowl and fill with water to about 75 mm deep, get a heavy cylindrical shape (Tin of peaches for example)

Sprinkle pepper in the water so you can monitor flow patterns.

Stir the water so it circulates in the large basin/bowl - this represents the spinning Earth, now

1. put the tin in the middle and observe the flow.

2. Put the tin off center and observe the flow pattern.

 

Try it and tell me what difference the off center central mass makes please?

I think that is no analog for the 3-dimensional Earth, nor the elements involved.

 

Now this Q&A gives a clue and a link to a paper.

http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/402/why-does-earths-outer-core-rotate-in-the-opposite-direction-to-the-inner-core

 

You can tell me if you agree now that you have done your little experiment.

Reading the paper now. However even skimming it I see nothing that says the inner core is off center. Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[Essay]

Try it and tell me what difference the off center central mass makes please?

 

But it's not an off-center mass. It's a process, as you're describing it, where a central mass is oscillating slightly, over time.

 

For the experiment to be more analogous, you'd need to vibrate your (centered) tin of peaches, imperceptibly, at some extremely high frequency.

 

~istm

[Robittybob1]

 

But it's not an off-center mass. It's a process, as you're describing it, where a central mass is oscillating slightly, over time.

 

For the experiment to be more analogous, you'd need to vibrate your (centered) tin of peaches, imperceptibly, at some extremely high frequency.

 

~istm

No that is wrong, for the tidal bulge stays constantly toward the MOON it is not fluctuating. OK to be very accurate you could drag the tin of peaches around at the same degree of offset once every 29 times the water representing the outer core circulates. But that won't teach you anything extra,

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.

The two studies are independent of course and might not say anything about what the other has found.

 

If you think my demonstration isn't representative, I'd say you are slightly on the argumentative side, for it definitely is representative of the fluid passing around the equatorial parts of the EIC.

Who has tried it? Well even without trying it what would you find?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

...

The two studies are independent of course and might not say anything about what the other has found.

 

If you think my demonstration isn't representative, I'd say you are slightly on the argumentative side, for it definitely is representative of the fluid passing around the equatorial parts of the EIC.

Who has tried it? Well even without trying it what would you find?

I'm anxious to read yours as it is more recent. It seems it affirms the faster inner-core speed as delineated in the study I gave, and adds that the outer liquid core is moving 'westward'. I think they mean relative to the mantle and crust as you had suggested but I need to reread both to get it straight in my head.

Me? Argumentative?

.

Addendum:

OK. Finished my gaming and read the University of Leeds article pointed to from Science Daily. [Your original link pointed to the Science Daily article.] Here's that Leeds link and some quotes:

New insights solve 300-year-old problem: the dynamics of the Earths core

Published Monday 16 September 2013

...

In the last few decades, seismometers measuring earthquakes travelling through the Earth's core have identified an eastwards, or superrotation of the solid inner core, relative to Earth's surface.

 

The link is simply explained in terms of equal and opposite action, explains Dr. Philip Livermore, of the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds. The magnetic field pushes eastwards on the inner core, causing it to spin faster than the Earth, but it also pushes in the opposite direction in the liquid outer core, which creates a westward motion.

 

The solid iron inner core is about the size of the Moon. It is surrounded by the liquid outer core, an iron alloy, whose convection-driven movement generates the geomagnetic field.

...

Other previous research based on archeological artifacts and rocks, with ages of hundreds to thousands of years, suggests that the drift direction has not always been westwards: some periods of eastwards motion may have occurred in the last 3,000 years. Viewed within the conclusions of the new model, this suggests that the inner core may have undergone a westwards rotation in such periods. ...

So my source would be one of those that, "In the last few decades, seismometers measuring earthquakes travelling through the Earths core have identified an eastwards, or superrotation of the solid inner core, relative to Earths surface.".

Note that the evidence suggests the directions appear to have changed historically and this being due to magnetic influences is very unlike your [bobbitty] bowl experiment. It also discounts the argument that the Moon's tidal force is driving the rotations.

 

Also, while there may likely be heat generated at the boundaries as you have suggested, such heat does not go into the inner core. At best it is just slowing the cooling of the core(s).

 

I would also point out that Earth's overall Eastward/counterclockwise rotation is an artifact of the solar system formation the same as the Sun & other planets. [excepting Venus, but this is believed due to impact.] As with Mars, Earth's core(s) will slowly cool enough to shut down the geodynamo and so our magnetic field will cease.

None of this changes the fact that the OP is far off the beam.

 

PS Here's the full paper that prompted the pop-sci articles. >> Electromagnetically driven westward drift and inner-core superrotation in Earth’s core

Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

I'm anxious to read yours as it is more recent. It seems it affirms the faster inner-core speed as delineated in the study I gave, and adds that the outer liquid core is moving 'westward'. I think they mean relative to the mantle and crust as you had suggested but I need to reread both to get it straight in my head.

Me? Argumentative?

.

Addendum:

OK. Finished my gaming and read the University of Leeds article pointed to from Science Daily. [Your original link pointed to the Science Daily article.] Here's that Leeds link and some quotes:

New insights solve 300-year-old problem: the dynamics of the Earths core

So my source would be one of those that, "In the last few decades, seismometers measuring earthquakes travelling through the Earths core have identified an eastwards, or superrotation of the solid inner core, relative to Earths surface.".

Note that the evidence suggests the directions appear to have changed historically and this being due to magnetic influences is very unlike your [bobbitty] bowl experiment. It also discounts the argument that the Moon's tidal force is driving the rotations.

 

Also, while there may likely be heat generated at the boundaries as you have suggested, such heat does not go into the inner core. At best it is just slowing the cooling of the core(s).

 

I would also point out that Earth's overall Eastward/counterclockwise rotation is an artifact of the solar system formation the same as the Sun & other planets. [excepting Venus, but this is believed due to impact.] As with Mars, Earth's core(s) will slowly cool enough to shut down the geodynamo and so our magnetic field will cease.

None of this changes the fact that the OP is far off the beam.

 

PS Here's the full paper that prompted the pop-sci articles. >> Electromagnetically driven westward drift and inner-core superrotation in Earth’s core

The following is my personal explanation:

Yes this Westward or Eastward motion is in relation to the observer standing on the Crust of the spinning Earth, so forget about the Earth's rotation just call that speed zero. the Outer Core seems to move Westward but the inner core Eastward. Now it isn't some sort of perpetual motion machine with the electromagnetic fields driving the motion and the motion driving the electromagnetic fields. No, the point that has been missed is the offset by a few kilometers of the EIC. It is held in this position by the Moon and the Sun. This offset is the cause of the currents in the molten Earth Outer Core (EOC). This offset adds to the braking effect to the rotation of the Earth.

The real energy for the magnetic field comes from the Earth's rotation, which has slowed down since the formation of the Earth from about 5 hours down to 24 hours/day today, so you can see it has drastically slowed, by a factor of nearly 5 times.The braking has contributed to the heating of the EIC and EOC. Without the Moon, the Sun would have been only able to set up a magnetic field but one much weaker.

 

OK I have not been able to explain the magnetic pole reversals, but if my theory is correct about the magnetic field as a consequence of the displaced EIC the only thing that could change the polarity is a change in the polarity of the EOC. Is it possible to be sometimes predominantly positively and other times predominantly negatively charged?

 

I am stuck for an explanation for that? The Sun reverses its polarity every 13 years or thereabouts, if we could only explain that!

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

The following is my personal explanation:

Yes this Westward or Eastward motion is in relation to the observer standing on the Crust of the spinning Earth, so forget about the Earth's rotation just call that speed zero. the Outer Core seems to move Westward but the inner core Eastward. Now it isn't some sort of perpetual motion machine with the electromagnetic fields driving the motion and the motion driving the electromagnetic fields. No, the point that has been missed is the offset by a few kilometers of the EIC. It is held in this position by the Moon and the Sun. This offset is the cause of the currents in the molten Earth Outer Core (EOC). This offset adds to the braking effect to the rotation of the Earth.

Well, that's all very interesting in a personal sort of way but as the last article made clear, the inner core has in the past -by all indications- rotated West. The offset I presume you are still taking from that Martin Wolf paper and I thought you understood that that work is speculative and not supported by any consensus. None I have been able to find at any rate. His references do not draw his conclusions; he merely takes bits from them and cobbles them together for his conclusion. If you have some such endorsement by all means present it.

 

The real energy for the magnetic field comes from the Earth's rotation, which has slowed down since the formation of the Earth from about 5 hours down to 24 hours/day today, so you can see it has drastically slowed, by a factor of nearly 5 times.The braking has contributed to the heating of the EIC and EOC.

No, it has not added to the heating. The core(s) are -and have been- cooling since Earth formed. You don't seem to get that the Earth's heat flow is from inside out. Earth is and ever has been loosing its heat to space. The core heat is a residual from Earth's formation and the decay of radioactive elements. I'll just post a link without quotes as it is late, but I expect you to read the article. >>Probing Question: What heats the earth's core? @ PhysOrg

 

Without the Moon, the Sun would have been only able to set up a magnetic field but one much weaker.

The Sun does not create Earth's magnetic field, Moon or no Moon.

 

OK I have not been able to explain the magnetic pole reversals, but if my theory is correct about the magnetic field as a consequence of the displaced EIC the only thing that could change the polarity is a change in the polarity of the EOC. Is it possible to be sometimes predominantly positively and other times predominantly negatively charged?

 

I am stuck for an explanation for that? The Sun reverses its polarity every 13 years or thereabouts, if we could only explain that!

Again, the Sun does not create or add to Earth's magnetic field. The Earth field is from the inside out; a geodynamo. The pole reversals have been reproduced using computer models and to do that the generating actions have to be understood well enough to program the computers. I thought I posted a link on that but I may just have referred to it. I'll look tomorrow.

 

So too are there models for how the Sun changes poles, though it's far different to Earth. It has to do with unequal rotation rates twisting the magnetic field lines until they 'snap' IIRC. I think Spaceweather.com has an article or two on that. Again I'll have to look around, but rest assured I have read about it. EDIT: Here ya go. SUN’S MAGNETIC POLES FLIP:Posted on 2014/01/02

 

In no case are amateurs proposing explanations/theories that the professionals will take seriously. It just doesn't happen that way. Spare me any harping about thinking-out-of-the box or stodgy orthodoxy or some such arguments; we have separate threads on that.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[billiards]

All I can say is that there were studies that showed the outer core was moving slower than the Earth's rotation. I would have linked to them in the Physics Forum thread discussing the Earth's magnetic field.

 

So I wanted to see what sort of situation gives you this fast and slow combination.

Demonstration: Get large circular bowl and fill with water to about 75 mm deep, get a heavy cylindrical shape (Tin of peaches for example)

Sprinkle pepper in the water so you can monitor flow patterns.

Stir the water so it circulates in the large basin/bowl - this represents the spinning Earth, now

1. put the tin in the middle and observe the flow.

2. Put the tin off center and observe the flow pattern.

 

Try it and tell me what difference the off center central mass makes please?

With respect you seem to be completely missing the point. Perhaps one could explain the super rotation of the inner core by elementary physics if the core is off centre. However, the inner core is not off centre. There is no seismology, or indeed any observational evidence, to suggest that the core is off centre. If your model requires the core to be off centre then it is wrong, plain and simple. A model must fit all the evidence, not just one piece.

[Robittybob1]

With respect you seem to be completely missing the point. Perhaps one could explain the super rotation of the inner core by elementary physics if the core is off centre. However, the inner core is not off centre. There is no seismology, or indeed any observational evidence, to suggest that the core is off centre. If your model requires the core to be off centre then it is wrong, plain and simple. A model must fit all the evidence, not just one piece.

Could you fault their physics? Where was his reasoning wrong? I read it again and nothing seemed glaringly wrong but it would need a better physician than myself to critique the physics.

"Earth’s Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration"

Martin Wolf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.3960.pdf

I see he has his email there so we could email him.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[billiards]

 

Could you fault their physics? Where was his reasoning wrong? I read it again and nothing seemed glaringly wrong but it would need a better physician than myself to critique the physics.

"Earth’s Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration"

Martin Wolf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.3960.pdf

I see he has his email there so we could email him.

 

 

If the physics predicts that the inner core (IC) is 60 km off centre then the physics is wrong. There really is no need to delve further than that.

 

Why am I so sure that the IC is not 60 km off centre? Because seismologists who work routinely with both normal mode data and also IC reflected and traversing body wave data would have noticed it. One would observe normal mode splitting at characteristic frequencies, anomalous PKiKP travel times, anomalous PKIKP travel times all as a function of phases of the tides. None of these signals have been reported in light of IC displacement. Note that these effects would severely hamper seismologists working with these data types, and therefore they would have been noticed. (I say that as a qualified seismologist.)

 

Also the physics seems wrong. The buoyancy force would tend to pull the dense inner core to a central position. Gravity would also pull the inner core towards the centre. It does seem odd to me that these are considered separately, as without gravity there would be no buoyancy and therefore I am not sure you can superpose these forces. i.e. buoyancy is the consideration of gravity (weight) in the context of the surrounding fluid. The author seems to think that these forces would conspire to push the inner core away from the centre, which seems plain wrong. Though, actually, the author does not consider the direction of these forces at all. This is as far as one needs to probe to see that this work is fatally flawed.

 

Note in the abstract it is claimed that the analysis of "wavelet doublets" has found the inner core to be offset by 60 km, however that is not backed up anywhere in the paper. There are two seismology papers in the references that analyse wavelet doublets. Neither of these papers make this unsupported claim. Therefore the author is either severely deluded or willfully misguiding his audience.

[Robittybob1]

 

If the physics predicts that the inner core (IC) is 60 km off centre then the physics is wrong. There really is no need to delve further than that.

 

Why am I so sure that the IC is not 60 km off centre? Because seismologists who work routinely with both normal mode data and also IC reflected and traversing body wave data would have noticed it. One would observe normal mode splitting at characteristic frequencies, anomalous PKiKP travel times, anomalous PKIKP travel times all as a function of phases of the tides. None of these signals have been reported in light of IC displacement. Note that these effects would severely hamper seismologists working with these data types, and therefore they would have been noticed. (I say that as a qualified seismologist.)

 

Also the physics seems wrong. The buoyancy force would tend to pull the dense inner core to a central position. Gravity would also pull the inner core towards the centre. It does seem odd to me that these are considered separately, as without gravity there would be no buoyancy and therefore I am not sure you can superpose these forces. i.e. buoyancy is the consideration of gravity (weight) in the context of the surrounding fluid. The author seems to think that these forces would conspire to push the inner core away from the centre, which seems plain wrong. Though, actually, the author does not consider the direction of these forces at all. This is as far as one needs to probe to see that this work is fatally flawed.

 

Note in the abstract it is claimed that the analysis of "wavelet doublets" has found the inner core to be offset by 60 km, however that is not backed up anywhere in the paper. There are two seismology papers in the references that analyse wavelet doublets. Neither of these papers make this unsupported claim. Therefore the author is either severely deluded or willfully misguiding his audience.

At least you have attempted to critique the paper but to me your criticism seems to have missed a vital point, that being the Moon. it is the balance between buoyancy and the gravitational attraction of the EIC to the Moon. Do you feel like making a statement about that.

I too wondered this offset hasn't been picked up by seismologists so when you seem to have put up a better criticism I'll email the author and get his response.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Robittybob1

[billiards]

At least you have attempted to critique the paper but to me your criticism seems to have missed a vital point, that being the Moon. it is the balance between buoyancy and the gravitational attraction of the EIC to the Moon. Do you feel like making a statement about that.

I too wondered this offset hasn't been picked up by seismologists so when you seem to have put up a better criticism I'll email the author and get his response.

 

A "better" criticism. Jeez. Do I work for you or something?

 

Google tidal force. Notice these kinds of images.

 

 

Basically, when the planet gets pulled by gravity towards the moon, the whole planet moves, including the inner core. Notice that things at the centre stay at the centre. The centre does not move. The inner core does not move from the centre.

[Robittybob1]

 

A "better" criticism. Jeez. Do I work for you or something?

 

Google tidal force. Notice these kinds of images.

 

 

 

Basically, when the planet gets pulled by gravity towards the moon, the whole planet moves, including the inner core. Notice that things at the centre stay at the centre. The centre does not move. The inner core does not move from the centre.

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.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Robittybob1