RE: New findings on the developments of the earthquake disaster
March 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm by orogenicman.)
(March 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm)Chuck Wrote: Were the large foreshocks and aftershocks not of the same type of motion as the main shock? Why were there no major vertical displacement of the crust on the side of the thrust fault to generate tusanmis with these shocks?
As far as I can tell, most, if not all of the foreshocks and aftershocks had similar motion as the main shock (in other words, they were thrust fault temblors). The main shock was the only one large enough and shallow enough to rupture the surface, and so was the only one capable of of displacing the seafloor, causing a tsunami. And displace the seafloor it certainly did - the relative displacement (between the hanging wall and the foot wall) was something like 25 meters (about 80 feet). By comparison, even though the 2004 Sumatran earthquke was larger (it ruptured nearly 1,000 km of fault), the relative displacement was only about 65 feet.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
