Re: Did anyone watch the two parter on TV; 10.5?

Dick C <foo.dickcr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns97D14FB17B50Cdickcrcomcastnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Skywise wrote in sci.geo.earthquakes

Dick C <foo.dickcr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns97D0D104F3EE4dickcrcomcastnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Skywise wrote in sci.geo.earthquakes

Theoretically, it's possible to have a mag 10 quake. In reality the
problem is finding a fault that is big enough to allow enough
slippage to equal a mag 10 quake? No, there is no known fault of
that size.

According to the NEIC the largest earthquake was 9.5 in Chile in 1960.
The Alaska earthquake in 1964 was a 9.2, and was the largest in the
U.S. The Sumatran quake that caused the tsunami was 9.0.
According to the NEIS there has never been a 10.0.

Who said there was? I only said it was "theoretically possible".

I never said anyone had said there was. I was just reporting some
things on the NEIS website, and noted that there never had been a 10,
just in case a lurker was wondering about the past.

I can kinda see your point. But I have to wonder, if there had ever
been a magnitude 10 earthquake, would we be sitting here discussing
whether it was possible or not?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
.

Loading