[Noisebridge-discuss] Earthquake magnitude

[Tony Longshanks LeTigre]

Sorry, I diverged from the thread topic there - I've retitled this message
to mark a new thread.

If anyone will write a brief synopsis / nutshell weaving together the
Entscheidungsproblem, Computational Complexity Theory and the Church-Turing
Theorem (and /or Church-Turing thesis) that I could include in ZiP#1, much
obliged.....my plate is full.


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Tony Longshanks LeTigre <
anthonyletigre at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Joshua Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I know the perfect song for that.  It's great -- it starts with an
>> earthquake...
>>
>
>
> Funny you should say that.
>
> I'm writing something right now for ZiP Issue One on the logarithm used to
> calculate earthquake magnitude. There is a lot of general public misinfo /
> ignorance on this subject. Many people, and even many media outlets, think
> quake magnitude increases by a simple factor of 10 for each full number you
> go up the scale, when in fact - correct me if wrong - an increase in one
> number represents 32 times more energy, and an increase of two full numbers
> equals almost 1,000 times as much energy released (900 and something).
> Meaning there is a huge difference between a 4.0 and a 6.0 magnitude
> earthquake. A 4.0 you might barely feel, while a 6.0 is big enough to,
> excuse the language, Seriously Fuck Shit Up. The 1994 Northridge quake only
> had a moment-magnitude of 6.7; Loma Prieta 6.9 - but then there's the
> surface wave magnitude.....that's of greatest import to us humans. It's
> complicated. But I'm so into it!
>
> Any other earthquake aficionados / seismology geeks in the house? It's one
> of my choice topics. If I make any noticeable contribution to hacking I
> would like it to be seismology related; i.e., a way to increase our
> accuracy in earthquake prediction.
>
> Also, everyone still says Richter Scale but my understanding is it's not
> widely used these days and is not accurate for measuring large earthquakes
> (above 7.0 or so). Moment magnitude seems to be most widely used these
> days, in my experience. Can anyone confirm / deny / elaborate?
>
> I am 75% looking forward to / 25% dreading my first Major Earthquake
> Experience. From all the first-hand accounts I've read and heard (hundreds,
> maybe thousands), they can be terribly exciting. I just hope I'm not
> crossing Valencia when the next Big One hits: in 1906 a big rift opened up
> in the middle of that street......
>
>
>
> +0ny
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120105/3739e0d1/attachment-0002.html>