• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Earthquakes in small areas

Really, most earthquake calcs here are rather exaggerated power wise
Using the first one for example:
What we're basically doing is taking a calc for the kinetic energy of a meteor impact and applying it to anything that causes stuff to shake. Despite it requiring far, far less energy than you'd think to accomplish that.
 
This exact thing is what I was thinking of, yes.

I find it disturbing DontTalk never bothered to explain why Earthquake calculations spontaneously became valid again.
 
This exact thing is what I was thinking of, yes.

I find it disturbing DontTalk never bothered to explain why Earthquake calculations spontaneously became valid again.
It was only made invalid for localized stuff, large scale quakes affecting countries or the entire world was fine in that CRT tho.
 
I know, but in this case we are talking about (relatively) localized stuff
 
actually, looking at this, it seems to be saying it's a 3.3 at the epicenter, with it's effects rippling through those squares colored in the same sort of code as the scale at the bottom, but it does demonstrate the idea you definitely shouldn't do this for an area less than kilometers wide

The other examples also probably fall under that, yeah they could feel the impacts from that far away, but it's like most earthquakes in San Diego, you'd barely notice it if you weren't actively paying attention/live in the area

(Unless the accounts specify that stuff was shaking around but that raises a lot more questions)
 
actually, looking at this, it seems to be saying it's a 3.3 at the epicenter
The total quake was 3.3, but the force at the epicenter was rated as a Merc VII due to how violent the shaking was. If you were to plug that number (mag 6) into any formula you'd get numbers order of magnitude higher than the actual explosion.

Solid objects are just absurdly good at transferring energy and force.
 
Or mostly just, magnitude isn't designed for someone measuring the exact tectonic plate that gives it off (heck, it's common for high magnitude earthquakes to end up barely doing anything because they start really far underground, I believe)

Either way localized earthquake wack
 
Or something something peak ground acceleration and KE. Maybe that could work and it'd nerf the results collectively (For localized areas at least), but not sure, you'd need the mass of the object you're shaking.
 
Does this have to mark the like third time we say no
 
Back
Top