Seismology in the Light of Fundamental Sciences
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
According to the definition, seismology is a science that studies the processes and causes of seismic phenomena and the structure of the Earth, i.e. a scientific discipline that studies the movement of blocks of rocks of the Earth’s crust and mantle and related phenomena. Seismology conducts research in the following areas and is designed to scientifically explain two main issues: 1) Study of the nature of seismic phenomena and the internal structure of the Earth. Why, how and where do seismic impacts occur? 2) Protecting humanity from the catastrophic consequences of seismic events. Is it possible to predict seismic impacts? Like any other scientific discipline, seismology is obliged to follow the laws of science and its fundamental principles. This article is devoted to the description of violations of the fundamental laws of science committed by seismologists in the study of seismic processes and raises the question of compliance of the stated research directions with the current level of development of sciences. Answering point No. 1, regarding the structure of the Earth, it is possible to recognize some successes of seismology, which nevertheless cause great doubts in the scientific community of geophysicists, because if the stratigraphic data of ultra-deep wells often refute [1] the conclusions made by seismologists on the structure of the Earth’s crust at shallow depth, then to assert something unambiguously about the structure of the mantle and at the present stage, seismology cannot. Answering the main questions of seismology, why seismic phenomena occur, and how earthquake energy is formed, seismologists have not had, and have not. Answering point No. 2, we can confidently say that in the matter of forecasting seismic phenomena, seismology has not advanced one iota over the past century, and as seismologists have been confused in the search for earthquake prediction algorithms, they are also confused without any hope of success. All that modern seismology can “boast” is the theory of Elastic recoil [2], the absurdity of which does not cause any doubt among the progressive part of geophysicists. But, the fact that most of the leading scientists-seismologists continue to piously believe the conclusions of the Elastic Recoil theory puts seismology in a humiliating position, because Mr. Reid’s theory is the clearest example of a false theory based on scientific incompetence of scientists, a model of brazen violation of the fundamental laws of science and the foundation of false and ignorant conclusions. Based on the results achieved, or rather on their absence, we regret to draw a sad conclusion: modern seismology is in the deepest decline, the cause of which is the incompetence of researchers as a result of their catastrophically low level of academic training, who stuff the scientific community with scientific geophysical rubbish, breeding similar ignoramuses in seismology. We understand that by asserting this, we offend most seismologists, but it is impossible to continue to tolerate this state of affairs in geophysics, because: “Amicus plato, sed magis amica est veritas.” Obviously, the time has come for a new meteorologist, Alfred Wagener [3], who will come and teach seismologists not to guess on coffee grounds, but to investigate seismic processes using the fundamental laws of science. In this article, we not only investigate the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in seismology, but also give our answers to the questions, of why earthquakes occur and how seismic energy is formed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle