![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does it make any sense to apply this measure to earthquakes a long time ago, when no data was actually recorded? To me it doesn't, but see 1645 Luzon earthquake. John of Cromer in China ( talk) mytime= Mon 13:44, wikitime= 05:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The given formula for Ms requires one to take the logarithm of A/T, where A is a displacement in μm and T is a period in s. It is accompanied by a note, stating, "It is obvious that the entire formula cannot stand dimensional analysis without additional qualifications."
Doesn't specifying the units in which the relevant magnitudes are to be measured already serve as the necessary qualification for dimensionlessness? For example, for a displacement of 480 μm and a period of 20 s we get A/T = 480/20 = 24. An entirely similar issue applies for the formula for moment magnitude, which also requires taking the log of a physical quantity measuring energy, for which, likewise, the units must be (and are) specified. The formula given there has no editorial note attached. Are there objections to removing the note here? -- Lambiam 09:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This article needs rewriting, but more fundamentally it needs better sources. It provides some technical details, but does not properly attribute them to the original developers of this scale, nor mention any of the historical context, or any of the characteristic of the scale. It relies primarily on two Chinese sources, in Chinese, which is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia, especially as the original sources are in English and readily available. I am tagging this to get more attention (as I don't know when I will have time to rewrite this). If anyone is interested I can point to the appropriate sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@
Ravenpuff: perhaps you would inform us as to which "certain reliable sources
" you relied on move this article to the hyphenated form? I point out that usage in the seismological literature seems mixed, and I am not aware of any definite preference for one form or the other. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
19:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does it make any sense to apply this measure to earthquakes a long time ago, when no data was actually recorded? To me it doesn't, but see 1645 Luzon earthquake. John of Cromer in China ( talk) mytime= Mon 13:44, wikitime= 05:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The given formula for Ms requires one to take the logarithm of A/T, where A is a displacement in μm and T is a period in s. It is accompanied by a note, stating, "It is obvious that the entire formula cannot stand dimensional analysis without additional qualifications."
Doesn't specifying the units in which the relevant magnitudes are to be measured already serve as the necessary qualification for dimensionlessness? For example, for a displacement of 480 μm and a period of 20 s we get A/T = 480/20 = 24. An entirely similar issue applies for the formula for moment magnitude, which also requires taking the log of a physical quantity measuring energy, for which, likewise, the units must be (and are) specified. The formula given there has no editorial note attached. Are there objections to removing the note here? -- Lambiam 09:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This article needs rewriting, but more fundamentally it needs better sources. It provides some technical details, but does not properly attribute them to the original developers of this scale, nor mention any of the historical context, or any of the characteristic of the scale. It relies primarily on two Chinese sources, in Chinese, which is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia, especially as the original sources are in English and readily available. I am tagging this to get more attention (as I don't know when I will have time to rewrite this). If anyone is interested I can point to the appropriate sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@
Ravenpuff: perhaps you would inform us as to which "certain reliable sources
" you relied on move this article to the hyphenated form? I point out that usage in the seismological literature seems mixed, and I am not aware of any definite preference for one form or the other. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
19:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)