[The role of mountains in protecting humans from earthquakes]
[The three Qur’anic terms to describe mountains (stakes; anchors; swaying) in light of modern science.]
AD In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
And the mountains as pegs . [An-Naba: 7]
Article summary. 3
Meaning of sway. 4
Meaning of rafa'i... 4
Mountains reduce the area of earthquake spread
.... 5
The relationship between the balance of the Earth's crust and mountains and the law of buoyancy (anchoring).... 9
The word (stakes and rafa'i) # .... 12
Mental topic.. 19
# Article summary
This article proves the role of mountains in reducing the area exposed to earthquakes; and that mountains were described as having extensions under the Earth's surface; and these extensions were described as roots; and that mountains float above the magma of the upper layer of the Earth's mantle; and that the balance of the mountain depends on the law of buoyancy; and that the balance of the mountain affects the balance of the Earth's crust.
The word (roots) equals (stakes); and reducing the area of the earthquake means that it protects humans from the vibrations of the Earth (that it shakes with you); and buoyancy means (rafa'i).
It has been scientifically proven that mountains absorb seismic waves so that they focus the earthquake towards the top of the mountain and its edges, thus saving the surrounding valleys and then the cities, and thus protecting people from (vibration).
The article proves the impossibility of this happening by chance, due to the many cases of agreement with modern science in the matter of mountains, as he described them with four descriptions, all of which were not available at his time (1) that they protect the earth from shaking, (2) that they have extensions under the surface of the earth, (3) that they float and remain afloat, (4) that there is a close relationship between their formation and the expansion of the earth, as the Holy Quran always mentions (He spread out the earth and placed therein firm mountains, and {the earth We spread out and cast therein firm mountains...etc.) which has been scientifically proven by the existence of a relationship between the formation of the mountain and the expansion of the tectonic layers of the earth's crust.
# Meaning of tumbling
“And His statement: (And He has cast into the earth firm mountains, lest it should sway with you) means: And He placed firm mountains on the surface of the earth, lest it should sway with you, lest it should sway with you. He says: So that it should not shake with you, nor move to the right or to the left, but rather be stable with you” ( [1] )
# Meaning of tumbling
“{The ship anchored} tarsu {rasuwan} and rusuwan: meaning (it stopped on the sea)” ( [2] )
“And the mountain anchored, if its root is fixed in the ground. The ship anchored: it reached the bottom of the water, so it remained not moving. And the anchor: a rope that is tied with ropes and sent into the sea to hold the ship and anchor it so that it does not move. “The cloud dropped its anchors: it settled in a place and was generous with rain” ( [3] )
“ The mountain anchored: its roots were fixed in the ground. Likewise the ship when it reaches the bottom of the water . The anchor: the anchor” ( [4] )
# Mountains reduce the area of earthquake spread #
Mountains absorb earthquakes heading towards valleys and divert them towards the edges of valleys; this reduces the area that is shaken; thus protecting a greater number of people from the dangers of earthquakes; especially since valleys are among the most populated places for people.
In an important study conducted by research teams headed by Dr. Mark van der Meijde , Professor of the Department of Geosciences, Faculty of Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation at the University of Twente in Enschede, Netherlands, in 2019, entitled (The effect of the topography of the Earth’s surface on the attenuation of ground shaking in the Kathmandu Valley in the 2015 Jharkhand earthquake in Nepal); It remains elusive
why there was only weak and limited ground shaking in Kathmandu valley during the 25 April 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. Our spectral element numerical simulations show that, during this earthquake , surface topography restricted the propagation of seismic energy into the valley. The mountains diverted
the
incoming seismic wave mostly to the eastern and western margins of the valley… Modeling of alternative earthquake scenarios of the same magnitude occurring at different locations shows that these will affect the Kathmandu valley much more strongly, up to 2–3 times more, than the 2015 Gorkha earthquake did. This indicates that surface topography contributed to the reduced seismic shaking for this specific earthquake and lessened the earthquake impact within the valley.] ) [5] (
In another study conducted by Xianlong Li, a researcher at the Institute of Geosciences at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan, and geophysicist Dmitry Komatich, with others in 2009, entitled (The effects of ground topography on seismic wave progression):
] Topography influences ground motion and, in general, increases the amplitude of shaking at mountain tops and ridges
, whereas valleys have reduced ground motions, as is observed from data recorded during and after real earthquakes and from numerical simulations.] ) [ 6 ] (
They say in the introduction:
] It has been known for a long time that topography usually causes increased shaking at mountain tops and ridges, while reducing Valley vibration as observed in ancient earthquakes (Hartzell et al., 1994; Spudich et al., 1996 ) .
[It has long been known that topography usually increases the amplitude of shaking at mountain tops and ridges, whereas valleys exhibit reduced ground motion, as is observed from records of past earthquakes (Hartzell et al., 1994; Spudich et al., 1996).]
In the following figure, we will notice that the impact of the earthquake on the entire Taipei Basin has been greatly reduced when the mountains factor is taken into account, and vice versa. The researchers comment on the blue figure (see next figure) 2c , saying: [Figure 2c shows that the speed of ground motion increases at the mountain top and ridges, while it decreases in the valleys... This phenomenon was also observed by Lee et al. (2008; 2009) . ]
# The relationship between the balance of the earth's crust and mountains and the law of buoyancy (anchoring) #
The disturbance of mountains leads to strong earthquakes, so the stability of mountains is necessary for the stability of the crust, and mountains maintain their stability based on the law of buoyancy, so any increase or decrease in the weight of the mountain or the adjacent crust results in the mountain descending into the magma or rising upwards, just as if you put a plastic box in water, increasing and reducing the weights on it reduces and increases its descent or rise in the water.
The Holy Quran expressed buoyancy with (anchoring), as the Holy Quran always says (firmly) about mountains; and linked it to protecting the earth from disturbance by saying (firmly, lest it should shake with you), so it linked mountains, firmness, and balance. Stephen
Errell says:
] Isostasy refers to the way in which solid floats above liquid. [
[Isostasy refers to the way a solid will float on a fluid.] ) [8] (
In an article by Amruta Patel:
] The theory of isostatics is a fundamental principle in explaining the buoyancy of the lithosphere, which floats on a liquid layer (the upper part of the mantle).
It is similar to something floating on water; buoyancy depends on the volume and mass of the displaced water. The Earth's crust floats at a certain height depending on its thickness and density in a way that keeps it in equilibrium. Thicker and more mountainous areas of the Earth's crust will sink deeper into the fluid in the upper part of the Earth's mantle. At a certain depth known as the " equilibrium depth ", the pressure exerted by the column of rock ( the root ) is equal everywhere (of the fluid) regardless of the topography of the surface. When any weight is added or removed from the Earth's crust due to, for example, erosion, sedimentation, or erosion or accumulation of ice, the crust balances itself up or down until equilibrium is achieved; this process is called isostatic adjustment ... When erosion occurs in the mass of the mountain over time, the lower crust (the root) rises to cause Balance.
[The theory of isostasy is a fundamental principle that explains the buoyant behavior of the Earth's lithosphere as it floats upon the more fluid asthenosphere (a part of the upper mantle) below.
The concept is similar to how objects float in water, with buoyancy being determined by the mass and volume of the displaced fluid.
The Earth's crust (or lithosphere) is in gravitational equilibrium and "floats" at a certain elevation depending on its thickness and density.
Areas of the Earth's crust that are thicker and more mountainous will extend deeper into the more fluid asthenosphere below.
Below a certain depth, known as the "compensation depth" or "isostatic depth", the pressure exerted by the overlying rock column is consistent everywhere, regardless of the surface topography.
When weight is added or removed from the crust, such as through erosion, deposition, or glacial ice accumulation/melting, the crust adjusts either upward or downward in response until equilibrium is reached again. This process is termed isostatic adjustment or isostatic rebound…When erosion takes down a mountain's mass over time, the crust beneath rises in reaction, maintaining isostatic balance.] ) [9] (
Harry Fielding says:
[ If a large amount of matter is removed from the earth If a part of the crust is bent and compressed as a result of tangential pressure exerted on it and the material on that surface increases, the added weight will result in If by erosional transportation a large quantity of material
is removed from a high land and deposited in the oceans, then the increase of weight under the ocean and the Decrease under the mountains will, as Major Dutton explained, set up a subterranean counter flow, which will restore the equality of material in the segments. If by the exercise of tangential forces a portion of the earth's crust is compressed and folded and the quantity of material in the segment thus increased, the added weight will cause a slow sinking of the region and material will flow out from below and reduce the mass of the segment to its proper value] ) [10] (
# The word (pegs and anchors) #
The description of mountains in the Holy Quran as pegs and anchors has been supported by scientific studies that have described mountains as having roots under the Earth’s surface and floating on top of the magma of the mantle.
In their book (The Earth), geologists Bryce, Frank, and Raymond say:
A mountain three or four miles high is capable of forming a root that may reach a depth of thirty or forty miles in the surrounding mantle . [
[A three or four mile-high mountain might project a root structure of continental crust thirty or forty miles deep into the surrounding mantle of the Earth.] ) [11] (
In his book (Anatomy of the Earth), the geologist Andrew Kellow says:
] This shaft of mountain-root serves to support the weight of the overlying mountain, thereby establishing equilibrium or, in the language of the geologist
, an isostasy.] ) [ 12 ] (
Tarbuck and Lutjens say:
]
The existence of these roots has been confirmed by seismic and gravitational data . ] [13]
Frank Pierce and Weymond Silver say:
] Continents float because of the large, low-density crust that protrudes above the denser mantle, which causes the buoyancy, as in Figure 19.6.
Note that the crust is thicker Continents float because
the large volume of less dense continental crust that projects into the denser mantle provides the buoyancy, as shown in Figure 19.6 . [14] (
And they say:
] Isostasy also implies that as a large mountain range forms, it slowly sinks under gravity and the crust bends downward. When enough of a root bulges into the mantle, the mountain
floats . ] ( 15) (
And they continue: ] The equilibrium of the Himalayas is supported by a root of the crust in the denser lower mantle . [
[The Himalayas are supported isostatically by a crustal root projecting into the denser mantle below.] Brian
Skimmer and Stephen Prutter state: The crust beneath the mountains resembles icebergs with high peaks, but with massive roots below the waterline. The accuracy of this analogy is demonstrated by the gravity profile across the United States, shown in Figure 16.18c . Negative gravity anomalies are observed where the crust is thickest. These anomalies are caused by the roots of low -density rock beneath the mountains. The anomalies are caused by the roots of low-density rock beneath the mountains.] ) [16] ( And they continue on the same page: ] Mountains stand high and have roots beneath . ] Geologists Gary Smith and Arora Boone say: ] Airy's hypothesis predicts that the base of the crust is deepest beneath areas of highest elevation; in other words, mountains should have roots in the mantle… Seismic data demonstrate the presence of thick roots of crust projecting downward into the mantle beneath mountains as predicted by Airy's model.] ) [ 17 ] ( And Christina Reed says: ] Wegener preferred to combine several models; to support the theory of continental motion he relied on the crust [18] (Seismic studies in many mountain belts show that most regions of high surface elevation are indeed compensated by significant roots at depth.] ) [ 19 ] ( Ted Nield says : ] ( Arie says that the gravitational effect of mountains is less than it should be because they have roots ... They stand tall because they have
Much larger roots at the bottom . [
[Mountains, Airy said, exert less gravitational pull than they should do because they have roots.... They stand proud, but only because they have much larger roots below.]) [20] (
M. J. Selby says:
] Mountains are formed by the collision of lithospheric plates; the uplift of the Earth's surface increases the thickness of the crust, and the buoyancy of these crustal roots is thought to support the topography of mountains. Once crust formation ceases, continued erosion will erode the surface topography. Here I will give an explanation of the response of crustal roots to the long-term process of continuous erosion.
In ancient mountain belts, the ratio between surface erosion and root thickness is small compared to modern mountains.
The best explanation is in light of gravity data that the buoyancy of the root decreases with time, beginning with the last mass-building process of the mountain, which is done by long-term cooling (of lava and magma). The
approximate equilibrium between the mountain and the root mass indicates that the continental lithosphere has remained thin enough to allow the roots to emerge in response to the erosion of the Earth's surface over millions of years .
The Earth's surface is accompanied by thickening of the crust, and the buoyancy of these deep crustal roots (relative to the surrounding mantle) is thought to contribute to the support of mountain topography. Once active tectonism ceases, continuing erosion will progressively wear away surface relief. Here I provide new constraints on how crustal roots respond to erosional unloading over very long time scales. In old collisional mountain belts, ratios of surface relief to the thickness of the underlying crustal root are observed to be smaller than in young mountains. On the basis of gravity data, this trend is best explained by a decrease in the buoyancy of the crustal root with greater age since the most recent mountain-building episode—which is consistent with metamorphic reactions 1, 2 produced by long-term cooling. An approximate balance between mountain and root mass anomalies suggests that the continental lithosphere remains weak enough to permit exhumation of crustal roots in response to surface erosion for hundreds of millions of years. The amount of such uplift, however, appears to be significantly reduced by progressive loss of root buoyancy.
Processes such as lithospheric delamination and rifting may strip away the crustal roots of some conflictal mountain regions, but substantial crustal roots have survived in many mountain belts over hundreds of millions to billions of years. Unless the lithosphere is mechanically very rigid, post-tectonic erosion of mass from the surface should be accompanied by some uplift of a buoyant crustal root and inflow of mantle.] ) [21] (
[22] Walter Butcher says:
" This indeed suggests the existence of a mountain "root
." Seismic studies provide a clinching proof.…the Alps do have a granitic root. ] ( David James says
:
" Active mountain belts have crustal ' roots ' that gravitationally balance the high topography. ] ( 23 )
If someone says that perhaps your Prophet knew about the role of mountains in protecting people from earthquakes by comparing the weight of mountains to the weight of buildings or heavy objects that support what is underneath them, and so he made an analogy with them, then this assumption is not correct for several reasons, including that heavy objects such as buildings and others support and support what is underneath them, not what is next to them. If you put a cup of water next to a skyscraper, then this skyscraper has no role in protecting this cup from any shaking, but rather the skyscraper forms a weight that supports what is underneath it, not what is next to it. Therefore, it is not reasonable to make an analogy with mountains because then people would have to be underneath the mountain, not next to it, in order for it to support them!
If it is said that your Prophet made an analogy with the weight that is placed on top of papers to support them, then we say that only what is underneath it supports them. Don’t you see that you can move the rest of the paper without what is underneath the weight? If it is said that
he made an analogy with a piece of wood carrying a weight, so it supports it, then we say that this is not correct unless the weight of the weight is much greater than the wood or is a nail, and the mountain is much smaller than being heavier than the earth.
If it is said that the abundance of mountains compensates for that, we say that the vastness of the earth breaks what is compensated for. He has traveled the world and knows beyond dispute that the area free of mountains is dozens of times greater than the area of mountains, so he knew intuitively that their weight is not enough to stabilize this large area.
If it is said that he thought it was like a nail, don’t you see that he said (and the mountains are pegs)? I say that this is a second justification different from the first, so after you were saying that it was heavy, you went on to say that it was broken by a nail, so it came back to you by saying “I concede to you that my first argument has fallen, so here is the second”, and at that time we say “What did he see in it that made him think that it had extensions in the bottom like a peg = a nail?” If you say that it is the nature of weight to descend into the earth, don’t you see that if you put a large stone on the ground, it descends a little? We said that this occurs in a manner contrary to the absence of a nail, for the absence of a nail in the wood is long in its descent and small in its diameter, whereas the effect of weights on the ground beneath it is short in its descent, so no matter how much weight you put on the ground, it will not descend more than a few centimetres, and this cannot be described as a breach like the breach of a peg or a nail.
If it is said that the weight of the mountain cannot be compared to any weight that we place on a spot because it is heavier, then since there is a direct proportionality between the descent into the depths and the weight of the weight, and the mountains are very heavy and sink like a nail or a peg, based on the small absence of a stone in the ground, we say that for that to be correct, it is necessary that he imagined the depth of the earth to be small, like the proportionality between the length of the nail and the height of the wood, since the difference between the length of the nail and the height of the wood is usually very small, like the difference between the index finger and the thumb or the little finger and the middle finger, unless it is an exceptionally thick wood like the thickness of a butcher’s wood, then even if that is the case, it is necessary that he imagined the earth to be shallow, because the difference between the nail and the thick butcher’s wood is ultimately much less than the difference between the depth of the mountain in the earth and the diameter of the earth that we know today, rather there is no point in comparison, and if that were the case, it would be necessary for you to say with an assumption that is not valid unless a second assumption is valid, and the second is not valid unless a third is valid, since you have assumed from the beginning that he was inspired by the idea From weights, then I assumed that he got it from heavy weights, especially buildings and heavy stones, and not any weight, then I assumed that he combined with the weight the penetration of the ground like the penetration of a nail as a condition for fixing, then I assumed that he got the idea of penetration leading to fixing from a nail driven into thick wood, and the succession of assumptions weakens the argument, and this is the result of what you did:
- The fixation is inspired by weights.
- This fixation of the weights is in turn inspired by their penetration of what is beneath them.
- This penetration ability to hold is in turn inspired by the penetration of a nail into thick wood.
This third requires you to stipulate a fourth assumption:
- The ratio between the length of the mountain penetrating the ground and the depth of the ground is as small as the ratio and proportion between the nail and the butcher's wood, no matter how thick it is.
The reason for this fourth requirement for you is that the nail cannot be fixed except by observing proportion. If you used a very short nail to fix a very thick piece of wood to another piece of wood, this would not benefit you, and the penetration would be useless. Then we say to you that he and all people have established the extreme depth of the earth. They knew this from digging wells, and from very deep natural wells such as the Barhout Well in Yemen, which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him )
knew, and like deep trenches, and like deep depressions, and like the depth of the seas, the intensity of which is known to people from their experience, the experience of fishermen and divers in extracting pearls and other things, ancient and modern. Therefore, you are required to make a fifth assumption:
- After he imagined that the condition of the mountain was like that of a nail, due to the extreme weight displacing what is beneath it, as the nail displaces what is hammered into it, he imagined that it was deep, with a depth proportional to the earth, in a way that would enable it to connect its layers together.
Here your assumptions increase and behind them your argument weakens, since no assumption is valid unless what is behind it is valid in a sequence of assumptions that goes back to the beginning!
And it is said to you, “How did he imagine the depth of the mountain in the earth?” This is different from the abstract depth, since we accept, God willing, that he could imagine the existence of a depth to the mountain in the earth, for that is one thing and his imagining the depth of this depth is another thing. Then how did he know that the earth has layers? Since there is no meaning to the ability of the nail to fix the mountain unless there are layers here. Don’t you see that the nail fixes two pieces of wood on top of each other? These are two layers.
So you have no way to prove the validity of your claim in this regard, and also this claim is not valid from another aspect other than the aspect of separating the aspect of similarity between the mountain and the fixing weights from the aspect of the fixing in the manner mentioned, and also from the aspect of making the mountain in its fixing like the nail, and that is for the previous reasons; This other aspect is that weights are a cause of disturbance, not of stability. I mean the disturbance of what is around them, if they are disturbed. Do you not see that if you put a weight on a sheet of paper and then the weight moves for some reason, the sheet moves completely or partially as long as the weight is in contact with it? Likewise, do you not see that if we move a stone, the soil beneath it will be disturbed? Indeed, the weight doubles the intensity of the disturbance. If I move the sheet of paper with my hand, the place beneath the weight will not be harmed as if it were moved as a result of the weight moving, so the weight moving above it will disturb its fabric even more. Likewise, if I put my hand on the weight that is above the sheet of paper and begin to press on the weight and move it right and left, the sheet of paper will be disturbed more than if I put my finger and apply light pressure on the sheet of paper and move it with the tip of one finger.
If it is said that Zaid's shaking is easier and more severe if you shake his cart empty of goods than if it is full of goods, I say that this is correct for a reason other than the point of discussion. The reason for Zaid's shaking more severely in the first case than in the second case is not because being empty causes shaking more severely, but rather because your ability to cause a severe shaking of Zaid's cart decreases with the increase in its weights. Otherwise, if it were assumed that you are capable of shaking the cart in all its states and your ability is not affected by the presence or absence of weights, then you would find that the presence of weights caused a doubling of the shaking, since when the first box shook, it returned to stability, and upon its return to stability it struck the cart and struck what was next to it. The same applies to the second and third boxes. Didn't you see that when you shook it, it rose from its place and then returned? Then, didn't you see it strike the cart upon its return? Then, didn't you see it shake as a result of its strong return, I mean its collision with its surface? So it is proven from this that the presence of the weight when its carrier shakes increases the shaking, not decreases it.
If it is said to me that you have demolished your verse, since the mountain is heavy and the weight increases the shaking during an earthquake as you said, I say that the height of the mountains and the vastness of their huge, towering slopes cause the seismic wave that the mountain absorbs to be distributed over an extremely huge area (a complete, towering mountain range). This huge area is able to absorb the wave completely such that its repercussions die on the way back, and this is similar to if the cart was extremely huge and heavy of wood, such as this absorbs the repercussions and its driver does not feel the disturbance of its boxes. If it is said to me, prove that the mountain does not cause disturbance in what is around it when it shakes and then demolish your claim that the shaking of the weight leads to doubling the shaking, I say that this is true with regard to mountains and not with regard to other things that your imagination claimed were the source of inspiration from which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) drew .The ability of mountains to stabilize, and since those other heavy things, the shaking of their carrier leads to their shaking in a way that doubles the effects of the first, it was necessary for him to imagine the opposite of what the verse stated, that is, that mountains increase earthquakes. Since he did not do so, it indicates that what you claimed as sources of inspiration were not sources of inspiration.
If it is said, “The source of inspiration for him that inspired him with the idea of the ability of heavy objects to stabilize, not to increase disturbance, is what you mentioned of the example of the extremely large, heavy wooden cart,” I say that this is a sixth assumption and there is control in it, so the series of assumptions increases and with it the control increases; then it is also returned to you from the point of view that they do not have horse-drawn carts, since the Arabian desert did not have roads suitable for anything other than camel hooves, let alone that an Arab among them would foolishly make a heavy wooden cart that would sink with him in the sand before moving, let alone that it would increase and become a phenomenon that would arouse his contemplations.
Then you must make a seventh assumption, which is that he was destined to see it in the Levant during his travels one day, and then I will give you good news of an eighth, which is that when he saw it, he noticed the phenomenon and then noticed the similarity between it and the mountains in that both of them are huge and prevent aftershocks, as it was possible for him to see those carriages and then forget them, and the issue of the mountains would not have occurred to him until, say, twenty years later.
Then your claim is not valid from a third aspect, which is that if the role of mountains in protecting humans had occurred to the mind of a Bedouin, would it not have occurred to the minds of the geologists of the Renaissance in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? How did a layman from the lowest parts of the earth in terms of knowledge notice what the highest specialists in the most brilliant ages of science in the most knowledgeable countries did not notice, and the matter is easy to come to mind with simple contemplation?
Even if we accept the possibility of this, and that it happened that a Bedouin contemplated it and that the great geologists were ignorant of it despite its extreme simplicity and superficiality, is it reasonable for it to be repeated in the issue of (and the mountains as pegs)? You also see it as a result of contemplation, so how could a Bedouin with simple contemplation realize what the caravans of the great geologists in the most glorious ages of the Renaissance have failed to do? Why did they not pay attention in the Renaissance to such information that, due to its naivety and simplicity, a Bedouin in a remote area from science realized?
Even if we accept that this impossibility was repeated twice, how did he know the third time, which is that mountains literally float on a sea of magma (anchored)? And the great geologists in the Renaissance ages were ignorant of it despite their naivety? Even
if we accept that it was repeated three times, how did he know the fourth time, which is that there is a relationship between the expansion of the Earth and the formation of mountains? Is it also through contemplation?!!
I don't know why these geologists are so broad-minded and stupid that they ignore four very important pieces of information despite them being easy to know. I know a Bedouin who learned the four through some superficial, naive contemplation!!
Dr. Ahmed Al-Shamy
08-28-2024
AD https://www.facebook.com/shamyshamy3040?locale=ar_AR
https://t.me/Ahmed_elshamy1
( [1] ) Al-Tabari’s interpretation, Jami’ al-Bayan - Dar al-Tarbiyah wa al-Turath edition (20/133).
[2] ) ) “Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus” (38/150).
[3] ) ) “Al-Ain” (7/290).
[4] ) ) “Al-Muhit fi al-Lughah” (8/368) .
) [5] ( The Influence of Surface Topography on the Weak Ground Shaking in Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal, by Mark van der Meijde, Md Ashrafuzzaman, Norman Kerle, Saad Khan and Harald van derWerff, abstract.
) [6] ( Effects of Topography on Seismic-Wave Propagation: An Example from Northern Taiwan by Shiann-Jong Lee, Dimitri Komatitsch , Bor-Shouh Huang , and Jeroen Tromp ,
Abstract . OCEANOGRAPHY, 3.2 Structure of Earth Portions modified from "Physical Geology" by Steven Earle. ) [9] ( Amruta Patil, Theory of Isostasy - Geography Notes, Oct 4, 2023. ) [10] ( Isostasy and Mountain Ranges Author(s): Harry Fielding Reid Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Jul. - Aug., 1911, Vol. 50, No. 200 (Jul. - Aug., 1911), ( 11 ) Tarbuck, Edward J. and Frederick K. Lutgens. 1982. p. 158. ) [12] ( Cailleux, Andre. 1968. Anatomy of the Earth. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Translated by J.Moody Stuart p. 222. ) [13] ( Tarbuck, Edward J. and Frederick K. Lutgens. 1982. Earth Science. 3rd ed. Columbus: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company. p. 157. ) [14] ( Earth, Press and Siever, 2nd Edition, p. 490 ) [15] ( Earth, Press and Siever, 2nd Edition, p. 490 ) [16] ( Physical Geology, Brian J.Skimmer and Stephen C. Porter, p. 469 ) [17] ( How Does the Earth Work? Physical Geology and the Process of Science. Second Edition. Pearson. 2010, pp. 306 – 307 ) [18] ( Earth Science, Christina Reed, Willian J.Cannom, p.39 ) [19]
( Geodynamics of the Lithosphere, Kurt Stuwe, 2nd Edition, Springer, p. 164
) [20] ( Mountain Roots https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Education...Mountain-Roots
) [21] ( Waning buoyancy in the crustal roots of ancient mountains, by Karen M. Fischer (2002)
[ 22] ( The Crust of the Earth, Walter H. Bucher,). p. 35
) [23] ( Earth Science: How old roots lose their bounce , by David E. James, ( 2002) Nature 417(6892):
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment