Incidentally, the usual designation of the magnitude scale to my name does less than justice to the great part that Dr. Gutenberg played in extending the scale to apply to earthquakes in all parts of the world.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What emerged, of course, was that the magnitude scale presupposed that all earthquakes were alike except for a constant scaling factor. And this proved to be closer to the truth than we expected.
There is another common misapprehension that the magnitude scale is itself some kind of instrument or apparatus. Visitors will frequently ask to 'see the scale.'
I couldn't help but be impressed by the magnitude of the earthquake.
My amateur interest in astronomy brought out the term 'magnitude', which is used for the brightness of a star.
I have a sort of inner sense for scale.
I suggested that we might compare earthquakes in terms of the measured amplitudes recorded at these stations, with an appropriate correction for distance.
I think scale is about, in a way, the apprehension of proportion, and all the proportions that mean things to us as human beings are related to the body.
If one introduces the concept of energy of an earthquake then that is a theoretically derived quantity.
I repeatedly have to correct this belief. In a sense, magnitude involves steps of 10 because every increase of one magnitude represents a tenfold amplification of the ground motion. But there is no 'scale of 10' in the sense of an upper limit.
I'm glad to see the press now referring to the open-ended Richter scale.