PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Watching 10.5?


charmedRic
May 4th, 2004, 03:07 AM
Greetings Fellow WTAWorld Posters, :wavey:

...just wondering if anyone was watching the 10.5 mini series?

...so far is has its GREAT attributes, but don't even get me started on the Scientific flaws.

So if anyone is watching, stop by let me know what you think. I would like to see what you all thought about it.

ptkten
May 4th, 2004, 04:11 AM
It was a little too typical for me. I'm a sucker for disaster movies but I didn't really care for the characters in this one.

bw2082
May 4th, 2004, 04:12 AM
I'm a friggin geologist. The movie was appauling scientifically but still entertaining as a disaster movie.

Tratree
May 4th, 2004, 04:23 AM
No freaking way am I watching that movie as a West Coaster who has felt quite a few big shakers. I don't need any help in the fear of earthquakes department.

esquímaux
May 4th, 2004, 04:27 AM
It was cheeky.

KoOlMaNsEaN
May 4th, 2004, 04:29 AM
i watched it. It was okay. i would cut out the part where everyone is running for 5 straight minutes.

jbone_0307
May 4th, 2004, 04:30 AM
That movie was horrible! On a scale of 1-10, I would give it a 2 and that is only for the limited destructive scenes. I agree, too typical. How the hell was a nuclear bomb supposed to fuse two tectonic plates along one of the most active fault line and for the bomb to be a couple of hundred feet (400) below the ground. There would be enough thermal energy in hell, yet a couple of nuclear bomb to fuse two plates permanently together. Im still confused. Was the 10.5 earthquake the result of the fault line splitting because if the fault line split and filled with pacific ocean water, wouldn't earthquake damage be limited? Im not even going to mention the rest, just a horrible movie. I cant believe I spent two hours yesterday and today watching this pathetic movie.

esquímaux
May 4th, 2004, 04:34 AM
That movie was horrible! On a scale of 1-10, I would give it a 2 and that is only for the limited destructive scenes. I agree, too typical. How the hell was a nuclear bomb supposed to fuse two tectonic plates along one of the most active fault line and for the bomb to be a couple of hundred feet (400) below the ground. There would be enough thermal energy in hell, yet a couple of nuclear bomb to fuse two plates permanently together. Im still confused. Was the 10.5 earthquake the result of the fault line splitting because if the fault line split and filled with pacific ocean water, wouldn't earthquake damage be limited? Im not even going to mention the rest, just a horrible movie. I cant believe I spent two hours yesterday and today watching this pathetic movie.

LOL! It actually was rated 2 stars on the preview guide :tape:

bw2082
May 4th, 2004, 04:36 AM
I too am confused about what they were trying to do with the nuclear bombs. The whole idea is perposterous. It even goes against the woman's own theory that there was a massive superfault deep below where they could not detect it. Were they just putting a bandaid on the surface faults? at 300-400 feet? wtf. The whole fusing thing was just stupid anyway. I'm not even sure what the hell was going on at the end with the ground shooting up and this whole giant chasm opening and splitting california. that just doesn't happen. The ground does not open up and swallow things. Was that earthquake happening along the san andreas? if so why was the thing starting in the pacific ocean and working eastward? The san andreas is a north south system.

jbone_0307
May 4th, 2004, 05:07 AM
I too am confused about what they were trying to do with the nuclear bombs. The whole idea is perposterous. It even goes against the woman's own theory that there was a massive superfault deep below where they could not detect it. Were they just putting a bandaid on the surface faults? at 300-400 feet? wtf. The whole fusing thing was just stupid anyway. I'm not even sure what the hell was going on at the end with the ground shooting up and this whole giant chasm opening and splitting california. that just doesn't happen. The ground does not open up and swallow things. Was that earthquake happening along the san andreas? if so why was the thing starting in the pacific ocean and working eastward? The san andreas is a north south system.

The ground splitting open (weathering) process does happen, it just tends to happen over lets say over eons and centuries, but the way they depicted it was that it happened in 5 minutes which is perposterous. I dont want to say the ground doesn't open up, it just occurs over hundreds of years. As for the swallowing, really lost me. Im assuming it did happen on one of the San Andreas' branch faults. I always thought that most Los Angeles was to the right of the San Andreas fault and that San Francisco was to the left of it, so I dont know why the split went east, north, and then west.

For the person who said they didn't watch it because they live on the west coast, WELL MOVE j/k. You know its going to happen, more likely sooner than later, but you dont know when. That is the only reason why Im scared to go to California because unlike a tornado, hurricane, and other phenomenons, you have atleast some type of warning to when they happen and you often time have some sort of shelter like a storm cellar in case it does happen. You could be at a baseball game or on the interstate, anywhere. This is what is keepig me in the South and/or Midwest region.

bw2082
May 4th, 2004, 05:41 AM
The ground splitting open (weathering) process does happen, it just tends to happen over lets say over eons and centuries, but the way they depicted it was that it happened in 5 minutes which is perposterous. I dont want to say the ground doesn't open up, it just occurs over hundreds of years. As for the swallowing, really lost me. Im assuming it did happen on one of the San Andreas' branch faults. I always thought that most Los Angeles was to the right of the San Andreas fault and that San Francisco was to the left of it, so I dont know why the split went east, north, and then west.


weathering and faulting are two different things. If there is an earthquake you will not see the fault open up a huge hole in the earth and swallow things up. Movement on a fault happens along the fault plane. IN the case of the san andreas it's a right lateral fault that runs north/south. If the earth did open up along the fault there would be no earthquake since there would be no friction happening when the plates move against one another. I'd have to check a map but I'm pretty sure that San Fransico is on the right side of the fault and Los Angels is on the left side since the pacific plate is moving north in this region and it's been said that LA and SF will eventually be adjacent to one another.

charmedRic
May 4th, 2004, 11:33 AM
weathering and faulting are two different things. If there is an earthquake you will not see the fault open up a huge hole in the earth and swallow things up. Movement on a fault happens along the fault plane. IN the case of the san andreas it's a right lateral fault that runs north/south. If the earth did open up along the fault there would be no earthquake since there would be no friction happening when the plates move against one another. I'd have to check a map but I'm pretty sure that San Fransico is on the right side of the fault and Los Angels is on the left side since the pacific plate is moving north in this region and it's been said that LA and SF will eventually be adjacent to one another.
Correct, it is expected that SF will be come a surburb for LA. Or viceversa depending on which side of the fault line you are on.

In the movie they managed to fuse the plates at strategic points (not the whole thing), so that the Big Fault wouldn't go from Washington to Baja. Since the Southern CA bomb didn't work, the deep fault @ 700KM made the upper fault a.k.a San Andreas pretty much split open.

Now for movie purposes, the entire this was GREAT, and I personally liked it except for some of the cheesiness.

Geology wise....a 10.5 is almost implausible. Ritcher Scale only goes to 9, and since it's exponential a 10.0 would be 30K times stronger than an 8.0. 30,000 stronger than an 8.0.....what's that? Ok to put it in reference in Anchorage they said the Earth moved like water in waves of 25 feet from an 8.2 earthquake. So LADS & GENTS ... a 10.0 in geological terms means the Continental North America.... becomes an Archipelago.

Sure we have all the faults for this to happen at a lesser scale......but heck I'd be more scared of the deep hidden faults from previous geological periods...if you like this subject....do a lil research on The New Madrid Fault...now that is scary business.