![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Radio Australia [1] claims that the vibrations were felt as far as London. Is that true? Jam2k 14:03, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
According to TV reports, it was felt in Lisbon, Portugal (www.meteo.pt)
oh really? didn't feel a thing here in kuala lumpur though. :)
-- The quake showed up on many of the instruments in the Seis lab I work for in the United States, but that does not mean that it was felt here.
Hi there, I changed the link from "magnitude" to "Moment magnitude scale". It was always linking to that page. I did this to highlight that the Richter scale is not technically used, because it saturates at greater than 8.3-8.6.
-- It is enough to say magnitude though. Magnitude alone does not specify that the ricter scale is used. However, Moment Mag is always used for large world wide earthquakes. In modern seismology ricter scale is almost never used it is only applicable to one style of seismometer (torsion wood anderson) and a specific type fault..
-- In the first paragraph it says "worst natural disaster in modern history", because of the widespread impact. The usual scale for 'bad' is number of deaths; so far, this quake isn't even close to the Tangshan earthquake in 1976. Maybe a native speaker of English can correct this? 80.126.182.118 17:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good day. Rumor has it the planet's rotation was affected slightly. Any confirmation? 24.107.227.12 18:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since 600 mi (1000 km) of subduction fault are said to have slipped during the quake, one can only assume that untold trillions of tons of crustal rock shifted position very abruptly. Sounds like that would be enough to cause some "small" change to the center of mass of the Earth, which would indeed affect how the planet rotates.
See
[3]. Individual earthquakes usually don't have a significant effect on rotation, but quakes on the scale of the
Great Chilean Earthquake or the
Good Friday Earthquake produce detectable changes in
gravity.
‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 22:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Changes, in theory, might happen regarding rotation (a slight slowing down), possibly axis (a "wobble") and the shape of our gravitational field (but not gravity itself). Please note that the article cited in footnote 7 confuses "rotation" with "orbit" and fails to cite sources on the "axis" quote. I'm looking for a source and have ony found a quote by Enzo Boschi Italy's National Institute of Geophysics suggesting a rotational disturbance. -- Zosodada
I just saw on Fox news that the quake made earth's rotation move 1/10,000 of a second faster, changed the article.
Ashwatham, changed as per above note. No citation on the figure. USGS says more time is needed to calculate. See new link/footnote. -- Zosodada
Burma is not correct name. -- Kosudo CONMEBOL 18:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hate to be difficult, but "Burma" is the correct English name of the country known in Burmese as Myanmar, just as "Germany" is the correct English name of the country known in German in Deutschland. The fact that an unelected military regime chooses to call it Myanmar in English doesn't alter that. Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of the Burmese nation, calls it Burma. Adam 23:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-- cuiusquemodi 01:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
it seems to me that that is the australian (or indo/australian) and eurasian plates, not the phillipines plate as said in the article... at least according to the US Geological Survey (which may or may not define plates differently than others) - according to this map:
can someone who knows about this either explain why not or change the article to the correct plate names? thanks...
Some of the news here in Australia is saying it's 9.1 richters. [maestro] 07:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyone know how to edit Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif to slow it down? - it cycles so fast you can't really see the detail very well. About half its current speed would be a lot better - MPF 18:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Works here. Well, good graphic but also Somalia was hit. -- ThomasK 18:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I tried at 0.2 for each frame (5.2 sec.), but it looks pathetically slow. — Cantus… ☎ 19:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to note it here. I think I settled on like .175 s/frame. Not sure why the file size shot up though. -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Reports are coming in from as far afield as Kenya and Mauritius... surely something of the wave must have hit Madagascar too, yet there's no mention of it here. Anyone know what damage, if anything, occurred there - and places like Diego Garcia, for that matter?
Grutness|
hello?
23:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After the total solar eclipse of 1999, (solar eclipse = new moon), a great earthquake happened which struck Greece and Turkey. Many other severe earthquakes took place after or close to a full or new moon event. My theory stays the same for the Indian Ocean earthquake, which happened the day of full moon and close to a perigee, where the combined gravitational force of moon and sun are stronger than to other times, which increase the likelihood of severe earthquake caused by extraordinary strong terrestrial (land) tides, especially in equatorial regions.
See also Full_moon_cycle, perigee, section terrestrial tides (land tides) in article Tide -- Wikinaut 00:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---> please follow the further discussion on my ad-hoc page User:Wikinaut/Moon-Earthquake-Theory to keep this article-talkpage free from theories, thanks -- Wikinaut 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. In the section regarding citizens of countries that were not struck by the tsunamis, the article reports that a Brazilian diplomat and her son died in Thailand. Af of yet, however, the deaths have not been confimed either by the Brazilian Foreign Affairs Ministry or by the diplomat's family in Brazil. Right now, the two ar officially listed as "missing". I'll make the change in the article and, if and when said deaths are in fact confirmed, we can revert it back to the previous version. Regards, Redux 04:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I'm checking the Wikinews article as well and I have noted that it's not updated as often as this article is, especially the toll count. Maybe we can add a link to that page somewhere in the article to divert people there as well? Jam2k 19:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
"The quake and the resulting tsunamis are being called the worst natural disaster in modern history, even though it was not the most deadly, because of the limited nature of the impact."
The last bit of that sentence used to read "because of the widespread nature...", after a re-wording I did a while ago. This was changed a while back to "limited nature". I changed it back to "widespread", and my edit was reverted as suspected vandalism (understandable, given the current state of affairs and the awkwardness of the sentence).
I was originally trying to say that the reason this is the worst natural disaster, despite not being the deadliest, is that the impact is widespread. I can see where people might misunderstand the sentence. I think the idea is worth expressing, although I'm at a bit of a loss for how to do so unambiguously.
The current sentence is, IMO, more subjective, as it simply says that the situation is the worst natural disaster.
uFu 21:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Radio Australia [1] claims that the vibrations were felt as far as London. Is that true? Jam2k 14:03, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
According to TV reports, it was felt in Lisbon, Portugal (www.meteo.pt)
oh really? didn't feel a thing here in kuala lumpur though. :)
-- The quake showed up on many of the instruments in the Seis lab I work for in the United States, but that does not mean that it was felt here.
Hi there, I changed the link from "magnitude" to "Moment magnitude scale". It was always linking to that page. I did this to highlight that the Richter scale is not technically used, because it saturates at greater than 8.3-8.6.
-- It is enough to say magnitude though. Magnitude alone does not specify that the ricter scale is used. However, Moment Mag is always used for large world wide earthquakes. In modern seismology ricter scale is almost never used it is only applicable to one style of seismometer (torsion wood anderson) and a specific type fault..
-- In the first paragraph it says "worst natural disaster in modern history", because of the widespread impact. The usual scale for 'bad' is number of deaths; so far, this quake isn't even close to the Tangshan earthquake in 1976. Maybe a native speaker of English can correct this? 80.126.182.118 17:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good day. Rumor has it the planet's rotation was affected slightly. Any confirmation? 24.107.227.12 18:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since 600 mi (1000 km) of subduction fault are said to have slipped during the quake, one can only assume that untold trillions of tons of crustal rock shifted position very abruptly. Sounds like that would be enough to cause some "small" change to the center of mass of the Earth, which would indeed affect how the planet rotates.
See
[3]. Individual earthquakes usually don't have a significant effect on rotation, but quakes on the scale of the
Great Chilean Earthquake or the
Good Friday Earthquake produce detectable changes in
gravity.
‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 22:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Changes, in theory, might happen regarding rotation (a slight slowing down), possibly axis (a "wobble") and the shape of our gravitational field (but not gravity itself). Please note that the article cited in footnote 7 confuses "rotation" with "orbit" and fails to cite sources on the "axis" quote. I'm looking for a source and have ony found a quote by Enzo Boschi Italy's National Institute of Geophysics suggesting a rotational disturbance. -- Zosodada
I just saw on Fox news that the quake made earth's rotation move 1/10,000 of a second faster, changed the article.
Ashwatham, changed as per above note. No citation on the figure. USGS says more time is needed to calculate. See new link/footnote. -- Zosodada
Burma is not correct name. -- Kosudo CONMEBOL 18:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hate to be difficult, but "Burma" is the correct English name of the country known in Burmese as Myanmar, just as "Germany" is the correct English name of the country known in German in Deutschland. The fact that an unelected military regime chooses to call it Myanmar in English doesn't alter that. Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of the Burmese nation, calls it Burma. Adam 23:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-- cuiusquemodi 01:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
it seems to me that that is the australian (or indo/australian) and eurasian plates, not the phillipines plate as said in the article... at least according to the US Geological Survey (which may or may not define plates differently than others) - according to this map:
can someone who knows about this either explain why not or change the article to the correct plate names? thanks...
Some of the news here in Australia is saying it's 9.1 richters. [maestro] 07:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyone know how to edit Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif to slow it down? - it cycles so fast you can't really see the detail very well. About half its current speed would be a lot better - MPF 18:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Works here. Well, good graphic but also Somalia was hit. -- ThomasK 18:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I tried at 0.2 for each frame (5.2 sec.), but it looks pathetically slow. — Cantus… ☎ 19:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to note it here. I think I settled on like .175 s/frame. Not sure why the file size shot up though. -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Reports are coming in from as far afield as Kenya and Mauritius... surely something of the wave must have hit Madagascar too, yet there's no mention of it here. Anyone know what damage, if anything, occurred there - and places like Diego Garcia, for that matter?
Grutness|
hello?
23:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After the total solar eclipse of 1999, (solar eclipse = new moon), a great earthquake happened which struck Greece and Turkey. Many other severe earthquakes took place after or close to a full or new moon event. My theory stays the same for the Indian Ocean earthquake, which happened the day of full moon and close to a perigee, where the combined gravitational force of moon and sun are stronger than to other times, which increase the likelihood of severe earthquake caused by extraordinary strong terrestrial (land) tides, especially in equatorial regions.
See also Full_moon_cycle, perigee, section terrestrial tides (land tides) in article Tide -- Wikinaut 00:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---> please follow the further discussion on my ad-hoc page User:Wikinaut/Moon-Earthquake-Theory to keep this article-talkpage free from theories, thanks -- Wikinaut 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. In the section regarding citizens of countries that were not struck by the tsunamis, the article reports that a Brazilian diplomat and her son died in Thailand. Af of yet, however, the deaths have not been confimed either by the Brazilian Foreign Affairs Ministry or by the diplomat's family in Brazil. Right now, the two ar officially listed as "missing". I'll make the change in the article and, if and when said deaths are in fact confirmed, we can revert it back to the previous version. Regards, Redux 04:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I'm checking the Wikinews article as well and I have noted that it's not updated as often as this article is, especially the toll count. Maybe we can add a link to that page somewhere in the article to divert people there as well? Jam2k 19:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
"The quake and the resulting tsunamis are being called the worst natural disaster in modern history, even though it was not the most deadly, because of the limited nature of the impact."
The last bit of that sentence used to read "because of the widespread nature...", after a re-wording I did a while ago. This was changed a while back to "limited nature". I changed it back to "widespread", and my edit was reverted as suspected vandalism (understandable, given the current state of affairs and the awkwardness of the sentence).
I was originally trying to say that the reason this is the worst natural disaster, despite not being the deadliest, is that the impact is widespread. I can see where people might misunderstand the sentence. I think the idea is worth expressing, although I'm at a bit of a loss for how to do so unambiguously.
The current sentence is, IMO, more subjective, as it simply says that the situation is the worst natural disaster.
uFu 21:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)