Finally I totally confused. I thought first it is related to energy released at the fault
to the tune of 32 times of every 1M increase.
**Shan...Don's email was confusing and the easiest thing is to just ignore it. He means that we have a particular log scale that we use today, but that does not stop people in the future from using another scale....so we use one number for an earthquake today and perhaps for the exact same-size earthquake someone in the future could use a different scale.**

May be you both indicate that the size
of energy will create such a long and wide rupture along the fault. **I would word it the other way around** OK let it be.

Another question, according to Einstein 3r law every action there is equivalent and opposite
reaction. Imagine last Dec.26 quake was an action; there must be an equivalent reaction. Is it so?
**No, not at all like you are thinking. It was Newton, not Einstein...the action if the subducting plate sinking into the mantle. I guess the reaction if the resistence of the mantle, which has to flow out of the way. Friction would also be part of this...producing heat. Newton's laws do not require an opposite earthquake. Conservation of mass means that the shrinking of earth's surface at subduction zones is balanced by stretching at oceanic spreading centers.

If that is the case, whether March 28 2004 8.7M quake occurred to close to the previous location
was a reaction?
**Not like you suggest. Instead, the first quake was like tearing a piece of paper...if you pull on the paper a little more it will probably tear the next piece along the original tear.
Does the new rupture created of about 42 meter high***the maximum slip was about 20 m, but that is mostly horizontal slip. I think that the vertical motions was probably less than 5 m, and may have only been 1 or 2 m over wide areas (I'm guessing on the vertical)**, 100 KMs wide and 1400 KMs length due to Dec.26
quake was settled or partially settled due to 8.7M quake? If not, naturally it may be settled to its
own position shortly.
**Again, this is not how earthquakes or subduction zones work.

I suggest that if you are going to predict earthquakes and want to be taken seriously, you need to learn about faults and plate tectonics. You can probably find information on-line. You might have gotten the location correct on your March 2005 prediction of the M8.7 ........
Chris