Re: Question to the group.

"Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> <snip>
> > > > with whom you conduct such speculation.
> > >
> > > And usenet is way to regulated and restrictive for open discussions, I
> > > gather?
> > >
> >
> > You were suggesting that their magnitude numbers invalidated the
research,
>
> No. I was suggesting that the reduction of tsunami records to earthquake
> magnitude assume a simple transfer of energy by displacement. While valid
> for simple earthquakes, it depends on the *aassumption* that there was NO
> landslip. Since we can neither assume there WAS a landslip, nor that there
> was NOT a landslip before doing an actual survey, the study should either
> consider the point or clarify that the assumption.
>
>
> > while I pointed out that they may be using conservative numbers for a
> > reason.
>
> They don't use 'conservative numbers',

As far as you know.  The fact is, conservative numbers are used in such
models all the time, depending on what you want the model to demonstrate.