Top Boy Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I appreciate your candor, I duly respect the partner of discipline we have both elected and courted to experience this blunder in the Middle East, once again. I also respect your understanding to quakes, although please know that I have a different opinion of most theoretic ideas (also known as popular science). One thing I was taught early in life, my own mind is as brilliant as it identifies strengths and weaknesses along the great minds we have chosen to acknowledge along the chartered distances of time. In that, my strength in life, seems to direct me in a light which easily identifies patterns. Patterns are something this planet has always followed, that is why we typically define much of probability based on the pages of "almanacs". In the course of a few hours of researching, more on terminology and geography, nautical conditions, and trajectory I was able to easily identify the pattern that was drifting under our radar screens. I wasn't even eating a donut and having a cup of java. I was interested. So, those who frequent these systems and receive pay for such conditional studies should be more accountable. After all, on 9/11 your Majesty the Queen flew our flag and presented our patriotic hymns at the changing of her guard. On that day, I remembered my valour carries her crown in equal respect and patronage. We spent, in this country, millions of dollars to investigate and identify if we had the available information, if our fellowships in Europe could have provided us more information, if the information was avialable why wasn't it communicated, etc. Did we not learn our lesson on that very date, with our cost of 3,000 people, how stupidly we miss our mark when we don't oblige the same commonality to the rest of the world. The key to 9/11 and other disasters is communication. We have the internet, we have the cellular advantage, we use these things for convenience instead of assistance. I can not imagine the idea of "friendly fire", we should not be shooting in fear; rather distinctively targeting our persistence in the remedies that render an honor to protect and provide a common defense.
ecoli Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I'm not disregarding your remarks, Top Boy, but they are incredibly off-topic. You should start a new thread (probably under General Discussion or Politics) to discuss these matters.
ecoli Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 New update: estimated over 25,000 dead, about 1/3 of the dead are children http://www.nytimes.com
mattd Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 the vice president of indonesia said today that the death toll may be as high as 20,000 for his country alone. that would push the estimate up to 50 k. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041228/ap_on_re_as/quake_tidal_wave ^^^in that story somewhere. i also heard on npr that the quake actually disturbed the earth's rotation.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 it doesn`t seem like 5 minute since those 30,000 died in the Iranian quake
bloodhound Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041228/ap_on_re_as/quake_tidal_wave death toll rises to 40,000
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 i just found out that a family's friend's brother is there near the center of it with his daughter. as you may have heard before a tsunami hit you the sea shore rushes (QUICKLY)outward to replace 'missing' water which is in the wave.. anyway, this guy saw it and didnt know what it was but was worried so rushed inside a little beach side building. then of course they were hit by 3 tsunamis... the building they were in fill up with water.... luckily he punched (somehow, no one knows how) a hole in the ceiling (they were floating in a full-of-water building right by the roof) small enough for his youngest child to get out, that child then floated off. somehow later he managed to get out too and somehow met his child (dunno if they are male or female, this is a friend's brother's child) they're all in hosptial apparently the child has lost vision (maybe temporarily, who knows?) and the dad has serious injuries including a lot water in his lungs, but no borken limbs. lets all hope... and that's 2 people out of hundreds of thousands homeless, dead and missing. [edit] not much info is known due to lack of communiactions from flooded houses and over-filled hosiptals etc
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 also as this is a holiday resort what happened to all the massive cruise ships, cargo ships and fishing ships that were on the sea when the mega waves came??? also one of the tiny island apparently is missing thousand of people who havent been included in the death toll yet - it is assumed that major population of that island have all been washed away.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 also as this is a holiday resort what happened to all the massive cruise ships' date=' cargo ships and fishing ships that were on the sea when the mega waves came??? [/quote'] nothing at all, it only becomes apparent the closer you get to shore, at deep Sea (Ocean in this case) no one would have noticed.
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 what? i'd heard that the center of the earth quake happened near the cost... which due to the more shallow water meant bigger tidal waves... i also heard on the news that some of the tsunamis were travelling at 300MPH... a tsunami travelling at 300MPH across open sea... are you sure it wouldnt effect boats?
Ophiolite Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 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
Kedas Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 nothing at all, it only becomes apparent the closer you get to shore, at deep Sea (Ocean in this case) no one would have noticed. depends, for very long ships this could be dangerous for small ships it won't when it approuces the coast de amplitude will rise fast and the depth/wave-length is decreasing making it very dangerous because it's almost like a wall of water. Why dangerous for big ships: because the front and back can be located at the tops of a wave while the middle of the ship has no support at all this can make the ship to crack up. more or less the same can happen on the top of a wave. So the relation wave length and length of the ship are important and obviously an amplitude that is high enough to lift it out of the water.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 swells do exactly the same at sea, it`s all compensated for on larger ship construction. besides the swell would be several 100metres long and a large ship would just ride it out. no, it`s not dangerous to them, not even sideways on for a propperly designed ship
Ophiolite Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 With wavelengths measured in kilometres and amplitudes measured in centimetres that is not a problem.
Kedas Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 what? i'd heard that the center of the earth quake happened near the cost... which due to the more shallow water meant bigger tidal waves... i also heard on the news that some of the tsunamis were travelling at 300MPH... a tsunami travelling at 300MPH across open sea... are you sure it wouldnt effect boats? 300MPH that would mean a wave length of about 10km. wave= 2*pi*v^2 / g (for deep water)
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 people away from the shore incline in a boat, with a GPS and looking at it at the time would have noticed a slight gain in Alt for a minute or so. other than that, it would go totaly un-noticed
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 oh no, i meant what if a mega big wave travelling at 300MPH hit you when you was in a boat.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 oh no, i meant what if a mega big wave travelling at 300MPH hit you[/b'] when you was in a boat. well then you`re Phuked, Obviously! but that`s not a Tidal Wave is it? and that`s what we`re discussing here
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 but that`s not a Tidal Wave is it? and that`s what we`re discussing here isnt it??? i thought we was talking about the tidal waves or tsunamis that are a side effect of the earthqauke. the earthquake center was under the sea and consequently there were big waves (tidal waves or tsnamis, whatever you wanna call em, big waves!) these waves have gathered speeds of up to 300MPH, these were travelling across the sea which is how comes so many countries were hit... im saying what if in the way of those big ways was a ship! isnt that we are talking about?
Kedas Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 With wavelengths measured in kilometres and amplitudes measured in centimetres that is not a problem. it's meters not centimeters. http://ruby.colorado.edu/~smyth/G1010/17OceansHO.PDF here they talk about 0.5-2meters but storms with 14meters and more have been seen in open sea.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 it`s NEVER a "BIG WAVE" or "Wall of WATER" until it gets close to the shore! I`m getting tired of Typing that! (
5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 it`s NEVER a "BIG WAVE" or "Wall of WATER" until it gets close to the shore! I`m getting tired of Typing that! ( appologies for making you type that, although to be honest i didnt know that! i looked it up just because i'd never heard it before and there ya go... YT's right again! soz, i really didnt know that! i spose its just one of those facts that you dont get taught ya just have to wait till someone tells ya... thanks man.
Kedas Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 it`s NEVER a "BIG WAVE" or "Wall of WATER" until it gets close to the shore! I`m getting tired of Typing that! ( I agree on never a wall of water on open sea but you sure have big waves there. lookup some big storm statistics if you like.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 oh for crying out loud, I was keeping it simple! I KNOW big waves occur at sea as do swells etc.. but NOT in this instance though, and that`s what we`re talking about TSUNAMIS!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now