Does the Earth revolve around its core?

The whole Earth rotates as one rigid ball, one revolution per day relative to the stars. The liquid core may have a very slow rotation relative to the crust, but that is measured in revolutions per millenium.

The Earth rotates around its axis because of rotational inertia. If you start a free bicycle wheel rotating, the only thing that slows it down is friction at the axle and with the air. Because the Earth and its atmosphere are surrounded by the vacuum of space, there is no friction to slow it down. That being said, there must have been an initial force to start it rotating, and that was most likely the force of gravity acting when the Earth was first formed and went into its orbit around the Sun (which in itself works on the same principle). The Earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with the maintenance of its rotational speed, so there's no difference between the rotational activity of planets with and without metallic cores.

We don't use the word "revolve" when we talk about Earth's own rotation.

Earth doesn't "revolve" on its axis, Earth ROTATES on its axis.

The word "rotAte" has an A in it, and so does Axis.

You are misunderstanding the entire law of inertia...or forgetting about it entirely.

There DOESN'T NEED to be a motor or anything continuously causing the Earth to rotate.

IF it were caused to rotate AT ONE POINT IN TIME, it WILL CONTINUE ROTATING as long as no external torque slows it down.

Continuing in the same rotation rate around the same axis, in the same direction is the DEFAULT situation of rotation.

-------------------------------------------------------

In response to your additional details, it is clear that you have unrealistic expectations for the abilities of science.

We don't exactly know the entire history of what caused every object in the universe to begin to rotate. We just don't.

Besides, the early universe, early galaxy formation, and early planetary system formations are VERY CHAOTIC periods. It mostly is just history of how all the matter was distributed, that made it non-uniformly gravitationally coalesce.

Please accept the fact that it WAS JUST the set of initial conditions that caused it to form that way.

As for things that need to be fueled to move, that is FRICTION deceiving you. If there isn't any friction, then a body that is moving will continue doing its moving.

Nothing is "running out" to keep a planet rotating.

Yes, but no time to answer right now.

Not all planets have an axis of rotation like Earth's and some of the larger planets might have superconducting layers.

Jupiter is suspected of having a layer of metallic hydrogen.

Planets with magnetic fields are not as common as people expect.

Thomas Aquinas speaks of the "Prime Mover" or "First Cause". This is a theological argument for the existence of God, but it does answer your question as to "Who smacks the stars?". His argument is basically that everything is already in motion, so who put them in motion? His answer necessitates that there must be an ultimate being who must have always existed in order for him (the ultimate being) to put everything in motion. This ultimate being is commonly referred to as God (capital g) in Christianity, the religion which I have placed my faith in. This argument goes against the Big Bang Theory and explains what the Big Bang Theory cannot, namely, it accounts for the existence of matter by stating it was created and then put into motion, instead of "just always being there".

Good question, i think the core may rotate faster than the outer crust, but this is just my opinion from applying thermodynamics.

Yup .. earth rotates around its own core....... and by the way moon also rotates around its axis...... but moon rotates very very slowly s... we only see one side of it...........