Ophiolite

Go back. Read post 11 by Coquina again. Do you now understand? Yes? Want to revise your input?

Here from tthe NEIC site: "Today's shallow, thrust-type earthquake occurred off the west coast of northern Sumatra at the interface between the India and Burma plates. In this region, the Burma plate is characterized by significant strain partitioning due to oblique convergence of the India and Australia plates to the west and the Sunda and Eurasian plates to the east. Off the west coast of northern Sumatra, the India plate is moving in a northeastward direction at about 5 cm per year relative to the Burma plate. Preliminary locations of larger aftershocks following today's earthquake show that approximately 1000 km of the plate boundary slipped as a result of the earthquake. Aftershocks are distributed along much of the shallow plate boundary between northern Sumatra (approximately 3 degrees north) to near Andaman Island (at about 14 degrees north)." My emphasis.

I think YT means over what length of fault was there a 10m displacement. YT I'll try to find something.

Agreed. Definitively and definitely. (And my Smilies have stopped working again..)

Why would they have to be small? Given the very low temperatures might there not be metabolic advantages in gigantism? Re: Your location.. Where? Penang, KL, Trengannu, Sabah, Sarawak, .... ?

Tycho, you seem to be granting a 400m impact an order of magnitude greater effect than I am (post 32). Did your run calculations or were you doing a back of the envelope, without the envelope, like me? Edit: I just found this site, ran the figures through it, and for a 400m object it matches my guesses. (Or really the other way round.) http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

I'm glad I stepped out for some shopping while that was sorted.. 5614, this may come across as rude, but do you bother to read what people post in reply to your queries? It often doesn't seem that way. After a while we might stop bothering. Kedas I'm not being picky, but that's also 50 to 200cms. I wanted to emphasise to 5614 that the amplitude of the wave height in open sea is small. If I had said metres, he would likely have thought tens of metres.

Newton said it of Hooke, but he was being sarcastic. Hooke had a malformed posture.

A 5.0km crater would have significant regional, but very limited global effects. Imagine it centred on Buckingham Palace. The shock waves would take out the rest of London. Windows in the Louvre blow in. Hikers in the Alps hear a big bang. Gilded in Helsinki carries on drinking unaware. Lots of dust. (The dinosaurs in the Natural History Museum get it for a second time!) Nice sunsets for a few years.

With wavelengths measured in kilometres and amplitudes measured in centimetres that is not a problem.

This would not be noticed by even small boats. The volume of water is there because of the extremely long wavelength. Only when the water becomes shallow does the wave begin to build in height. There are a multitude of relevant sites. This one is quite simple, but not simplistic. http://ivis.eps.pitt.edu/courses/hazards/lectures/22.pdf

Their original letter to Nature announcing the double helix is here: http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/watson-crick/ and in its original format here: http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf Is this what you wanted?

I posted this on another forum, but thought it might be of interest here.If it did hit how big would the crater be? The general equation governing crater size is: D=k.E^n Where D= crater diameter, k is a constant, E is the energy of impact, and n is a dimensionless number. [This site describes an experiment you can conduct to determine the values of k and n: http://helios.astro.lsa.umich.edu/C.../cr_short.html] The energy of the impact is given by E=1/2.m.v^2 Where E=energy in joules, m=mass in kg, v = velocity in m/sec [because the orbit of 2004N4 is fairly well established we have a good fix on the velocity. The mass is more difficult to determine. It depends upon the average density and total volume. The 1600 megaton figure for impact energy quoted on the NASA site is based on a density of 2.6g/cc (which assumes a typical chondritic composition with little or no iron-nickel) and a diameter of about 400m. The latter is based on assumptions about the albedo - how much light is reflected by the object.) This useful link contains Gene Shoemaker's version of the general equation: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...45968.As.r.html The key equation becomes: D = Sg Sp Kn W^(1/3.4) Where Sg is a gravitational correction factor (1.0 for Earth impacts), and Sp is a density correction factor for the target material. Plugging the values for 2004MN4 into the equation gives us a diameter of 4.6 kms, if I haven't dropped a decimal place.

I'd go for Newton as the better scientist and Einstein as the nicer human.

By amused do you mean diverted, intrigued? If so, I agree: it is a good thing. What is hysterical about scientific theories? Name one hysterical theory; demonstrate clearly in what way it is hysterical. (In what way is DNA hysterical.) What does this mean? That it reflects what we were, not what we may become? If so, that is false. Our genes set limits on our potential. This becomes increasingly dense and senseless. There is a suggestion of meaning, but too obscure to be interpreted. Clarification would be welcome.

You can. Too tired to google' date=' but some researchers just pulled it off with a virus. And of course RNA does not use all the same bases. Look all the DNA does (did I say all?) is provide the genetic code for the organism. We do not know what range of other structures might fullfill this role. Externally and behaviourly the organism could appear very similar. Why not?

If not it may at least let us get rid of Bruce Willis.

Marx saw it as a transition: Capitalism>>Socialism>Communism Consequently it should have been the most capitalist of states that first became socialist: Germany or the UK were prime candidates in his mind. He would have been horrified if someone had suggested primitive, feudalistic Russia. It had not progressed to the necesssary pre-condition of capitalism.

I'll try stating this more bluntly' date=' not in oder to be antagonistic, but as a gesture of respect for your clear strength of feeling in the matter. [b']The Sumatra quake was unpredictable. Earthquakes are currently unpredictable. Earthquakes may never be trully predictable. Earthquakes are governed by Chaos, not linear equations. [/b] Those are the facts. Unpalatable, undesired, unwished for, unvarnished facts. Your description of modern technology as applied in the first Gulf War was interesting. It is regretable that equivalent technology was not available for other facets of the war. In that case we British might not have lost more troops to friendly US fire than we did to the Iraquis. No, it is never simple.

Good article. I may have mentioned before, the only time I felt really safe from impact was standing on the edge of the Barrringer crater in Arizona. I mean, what are the chances......? On the same basis Coquina must feel secure except when she travels, as she is atop the Chesapeake Bay impact site.

You've got my attention Gilded. But it does show how these things work. Without the Sumatra quake nobody, including yourself, would have remembered it. We remember the hits.

Not impossible, just difficult, and why the results are presented as probabilities, and why those are constantly revised as new data is obtained. Think of the accuracy with which we can place interplanetary probes. Cassini arrived at its designated intercept with Saturn just seconds adrift. That stems from astronomer's excellent observational techniques and effective application of orbital mechanics equations.

And of course there has never been a communist state. The states purporting to follow communist principles were/are stuck at the socialist stage. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ring a bell.)

That's the entire point of these assessments. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html

Pedantic Post: This potential threat is not a meteorite. A meteorite reaches the surface of the Earth. This potential threat is not a meteor. Meteors are objects that are made visible as they plunge through the Earth's atmosphere. This potential threat is not a meteoroid. Meteoroids are meteors and meteorites before they encounter the Earth, and they are less than 100m across. This potential threat is an asteroid.