|
Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) |
.02; I didn't say they weren't big, I said they had different mechanisms. Matter of fact, they should look something like the opposite of a nuclear explosion. A nuke shows up on all first arrivals. The rockburst should show down; it's an IMplosion. Roger Follow Ups: ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - 2cents 18:11:10 - 6/11/2002 (16013) (1) ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - Roger Hunter 18:24:02 - 6/11/2002 (16015) (1) ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - 2cents 18:32:41 - 6/11/2002 (16016) (1) ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - Roger Hunter 19:11:38 - 6/11/2002 (16019) (1) ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - 2cents 21:07:42 - 6/11/2002 (16020) (0) ● Re: New ways to predict quakes (29 Nov. 2000) - 2cents 18:10:50 - 6/11/2002 (16012) (0) |
|