THE INTERNATIONAL GRAVITY FORMULA. WALTER D. LAMBERT. ABSTRACT. The International Gravity Formula was adopted with a view to the future determination of the figure of the earth by Stokes’ formula and a comparison on a common basis of the results from gravity observations with those from astronomical leveling. The gravity formula is developed from the constants of the International Spherold of references then the gravity formula resulting from on assurap- tion of a fluid spheroid of reference of mass equal to that of the Inter- national Spheroid is developed and discussed. ‘The conclusion that the departure from the results of the International Formula would be slight is illustrated by numerical examples. ‘There is some discussion of the so-called Bruns term or effect and of the controversy occasioned by Hopfner’s revival of Bruns’ ideas. The Bruns effect was, in fact, considered by Stokes and is taken account of in Stokes’ formula. ‘A longitude term is developed by means of spherical harmonics, It seems to be real but there are too few data to permit an accurate determination of the coefficients. Various hypotheses advanced by prominent geodesists are stated and the implications to be drawn are discussed in some detail. HIS article is mainly expository; its purpose is to bring together certain essential facts regarding the International Gravity formula and to explain their relation to certain prob- lems in geophysics. No claim to originality is made. SECTION 1—nisToRY. When the International Association of Geodesy adopted the International Gravity Formula at its Stockholm Assembly(1)* in 1980, it was not their primary purpose to choose the dis- posable parameters of the general gravity formula so as best to represent the gravity observations then available. ‘The purpose was rather to put the determination of the figure of the earth from gravity observations on the same basis as its determin- ation from triangulation combined with astronomical observa- tion, the so-called astronomical leveling.” By the figure of the earth is here meant, not so much the determination of the spheroid of closest fit to the sea-level sur- 1 The numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate the References, * This is quite a different operation from ordinary spirit leveling and has a very different purpose. A detailed explanation would take us too far afield, 360Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 361 face of the earth, the geoid, as the actual form of that sea- level surface. The form of this surface, the geoid, is very con- veniently specified by giving for a dense network of points the elevations of the geoid® above some regular spheroid of refer- ence or its depressions below that spheroid. This is sometimes called, with more picturesqueness than accuracy, “determining the humps and hollows of the geoid.”” The humps are merely regions of sharper curvature, the hollows regions where the curvature is less sharp; actual hollows of very small depth and extent are conceivable in extreme cases but are practically nonexistent. In what follows we shall distinguish between a spheroid and an ellipsoid. We shall assume that both figures are surfaces of revolution* about the shorter axis. The ellip- soids we are dealing with are then oblate ellipsoids of revolu- tion. A nearly spherical, oblate surface of revolution, symmetrical with respect to the equator and not an exact ellipsoid, is here termed a spheroid. A spheroid may be more “square-shouldered” than an ellipsoid, that is, its meridian cross section may more nearly fill the circumscribing rectangle than does the meridian section of an exact ellipse with the same axes, or it may be less “square-shouldered.” It is found that surfaces of fluid equilibrium under gravity and the cen- trifugal acceleration due to rotation are depressed in middle latitudes below exact ellipsoids of revolution having the same axes, that is, they are of the less “square-shouldered” type. For definiteness let us denote by N the elevation of the geoid above some spheroid of reference; a negative value of N cor- responds to a depression of the geoid below the surface of reference. Of course, it is convenient to have for the spher- oid of reference a spheroid of fairly close fit to the geoid as a whole, but the geoid is still the same geoid, whatever the spheroid of reference may be. However, the similarity of two determinations of the geoid may be rather effectually dis- guised by referring them to different spheroids of reference; * From now on we shall use the word geoid instead of the longer expres- sion sea-level surface. The geoid may be considered as prolonged beyond the ocean and beneath the continents by a mathematical process. We may visualize it as prolonged by a system of very narrow sea-level canals cut through from sea to sea. “This usage has been condemned, and justly so, as far as any general discussion is concerned. A spheroid should, in general, be merely a surface differing but little from a sphere and need not be a surface of revolution. ‘The definitions here adopted, for use in this connection only, save a good deal of circumlocution.362 Daly Volume. hence the convenience of using the same spheroid of reference as consistently as possible. The values of N are intimately related to excesses or defi- ciencies of mass or density and these are, of course, of con- siderable geophysical interest. The International Association of Geodesy had already adopted (Madrid, 1924) an International Ellipsoid (Spher- oid) of Reference based on Hayford’s Spheroid of 1909. This ellipsoid is an exact ellipsoid of revolution defined by the parameters: Semi-major axis (equatorial radius) =6 878 888 meters. Flattening (ellipticity) =1/297 exactly. From these we deduce the semi-minor axis (polar radius) to be 6 356 911.946 meters. For triangulation the geodesist is practically compelled for reasons of mathematical simplicity to use an exact ellipsoid of revolution as his surface of reference. The calculations for such a surface are intricate enough. If a spheroid not an exact ellipsoid were used, the mathematical complications would increase past endurance. At Madrid in 1924 the main concern was with an ellipsoid of reference for triangulation and astronomical observations. At Stockholm the International Association of Geodesy decided to use the same ellipsoid of reference for gravity. To com- plete the International Gravity Formula it was necessary to specify gravity at some one point. The value of gravity at the Equator determined by Heiskanen(2) was adopted, namely, 978.049 gals. To this extent the International Gravity Form- ula was intended to represent the then existing gravity data. Astronomical leveling may be used to determine the figure of the earth over a large area, such as a continent. The geoid may be referred to a spheroid of pre-assigned dimensions. The axis of revolution of the spheroid will be parallel to the polar axis of the earth but the relation of the center of the spheroid to the center of the actual earth will be undetermined. Similar operations on another separate continent may be so conducted as to refer the geoid there to a spheroid of the same size and shape and having its axis in the same direction but the position of the center of the spheroid is again undetermined. If the triangulations of the two continents can be connected, they can be referred to the same spheroid but the uncertaintyLambert—International Gravity Formula. 363 as to the center of the spheroid remains. Let us restrict the symbol N, previously used to denote the elevation of the geoid above any spheroid of reference, to the special case where the center of the spheroid coincides with the center of mass of the earth. It is the N thus restricted that is needed for comput- ing excesses or deficiencies of density. Then we can say that astronomical leveling determines not N but N plus an unknown correction. The excesses or deficiencies of density computed from the N’s subject to uncertain corrections are, of course, correspondingly uncertain. Gravity observations offer a way out of this difficulty. Although triangulation cannot be carried across an ocean, gravity determinations can be made at sea, as Vening Meinesz has shown. Nearly a century ago Stokes(3) derived a formula connect- ing the value of N with gravity anomalies. We treat the earth as a sphere for the purposes of the computation. Sup- pose we wish the value of N at some point A. Let P be a point somewhere on the earth at an angular distance y from A and Ag be the gravity anomaly in the neighborhood of P and do the element of solid angle around P. Let @ be the radius of the earth, and G a mean value of gravity over the earth, Let F(¥) be a certain rather complicated function of ¥, the precise form of which will be found in Stokes’ paper or in other dis- cussions of the subject. See also reference(24) pages 102 and 114, Stokes showed that N= Zig [49F W) do ee -Q) The subscript © indicates an integration over the unit sphere on which » is measured. In practice the integration is replaced by a finite summation. The gravity anomaly, Ag, implies a formula for theoretical gravity and the formula for theoretical gravity implies a certain spheroid of reference. The value of N is then the elevation (or depression) of geoid at 4 with respect to this spheroid of reference. By the use of the formula the center of the spheroid is made to coincide with the center of mass of the earth. The formula will not give N with respect to a spheroid in another position. A price has to be paid for these advantages. The price is that the integration for » in (1) covers the entire unit sphere and the corresponding gravity364 Daly Volume. anomaly must be known, theoretically at least, over the entire earth. This happy state of affairs is, of course, far from realization; but even in 1930, when Vening Meinesz’s method was still comparatively new, the geodesists at Stockholm were thinking of the future and providing a method whereby the results from astronomical leveling and from Stokes’ formula could be made readily comparable. However, for a point A the anomalies in the region around A have much more effect on the value of N than do ‘the anomalies in the remoter regions. The blanks left by obser- vation in these remoter regions may be filled by some reason- able hypothesis or the anomalies may arbitrarily be made zero and the results of the computation still will have some interest. A study of this sort was made by Hirvonen(4). At the Washington meeting (1939) of the International Association of Geodesy the following resolution (translated) was proposed by Vening Meinesz(5): “The International Association of Geodesy will at regular intervals, say every ten years, undertake the calculations of the form of geoid by Stokes’ formula, introducing into it the known gravity anoma- lies and treating as zero the anomalies in regions where there are no gravity observations and the anomalies within a circumfer- ence of say 500 kilometers around the station for which the calculation is made.” Note that the resolution says “within a circumference of say 500 kilometers.” The purpose of the resolution is to systematize and make uniform by international action the com- paratively small part of N due to gravity anomalies in the remoter regions and to reserve to the country or countries concerned the calculation of the effect of the anomalies within the 500-kilometer limit. This idea is elaborated in the explanation that follows the resolution. The resolution was discussed and met general approval but, because of the war and the resultant informality of the proceedings, it appears not to have been officially adopted. De Graaff Hunter(6) has made a careful study of the use of Stokes’ formula to determine the figure of the earth. Stokes’ formula applied to artificial distributions of the gravity anomaly gives some interesting results. Some examples are discussed in Note II. To sum up: The International Gravity Formula wasLambert—International Gravity Formula, 365 adopted with a view to the future determination of the figure of the earth by Stokes’ formula and a comparison on a com- mon basis of the results from gravity observations with those from astronomical leveling It is likely, therefore, to be retained for these purposes for an indefinite time in the future, even though other formulas may be derived that will better represent the then existing mass of gravity data or be more convenient for certain other purposes. It will probably be found that the International Formula will represent future gravity data about as well as any other. The flattening is very nearly that derived by de Sitter and Brouwer(7) as the combined result of many methods of deter- mining this quantity. The departure from conditions of ideal fluid equilibrium was premeditated, but unimportant for the usual geophysical interpretation of gravity anomalies. See Section 8. The value of gravity at the equator could be changed as later developments might require without impair- ing the usefulness of the formula in the application of Stokes’ method. See Note II. section 2. Formulas for theoretical gravity are often of the type 9=9-1+B sin? otsmaller terms), ..... 066.005 (2) where g is gravity in latitude $ and g, is gravity at the equator. More or less rigor may enter into the derivation. In the derivation small quantities that are only approximately equal may be treated as absolutely equal, or they may not. The distinction between geographic and geocentric latitude may or may not be made. The smaller terms may or may not be omitted, and so forth. It may be worth mentioning, however, that simplicity or brevity in one respect does not imply simplicity or brevity in another. For instance, if we make things geometrically simple by assuming an exact ellipsoid as our basis, this does not mean that in an accurate formula we can ignore the difference between geocentric and geographic latitude, or that we may omit the smaller terms in (2), or that the potential function from which gravity is derived (expressed in the usual spherical coédinates) is especially simple. If we start by assuming that the smaller terms in (2) are zero, then our surface of reference is not an exact ellipsoid, nor js the potential function especially simple.366 Daly Volume. If we start with a simple potential function (in ordinary spherical codrdinates), the small terms in (2) do not reduce to zero, nor is the surface an exact ellipsoid. We can, it is true, use curvilinear codrdinates especially tailored to fit an exact ellipsoidal surface and then the potential function can be reduced to a few terms, but the small terms in (2) are still there, Suppose we have a spheroid with the semiaxes a and b and suppose that it differs from an ellipsoid having the same axes by being depressed below the ellipsoid in middle latitudes by an amount equal to a k sin? 2 , where k is a pure number and ¢ is the latitude It is seen that this assumption makes the spheroid and ellipsoid coincide along the equator and at the poles. Airy(8), Helmert(9), Darwin(10) and others have shown that in this case the expression for gravity on the spher- oid, which is assumed to be a level surface for the combined effects of gravitational attraction and centrifugal accelera- tion, may be written g =gell+Psin? d—B,sin?24] ...........5 (3) where 5 17 8k Pram tae re he Big) la ah ae a g is gravity on the spheroid in geographic latitude #; g. is gravity at the equator of the spheroid; m is o2a/g., where © is the angular velocity of rotation of the earth, so that 7a is the centrifugal acceleration at the equator and m=o'a/g, is the ratio of the centrifugal acceleration at the equator to gravity there; f is the flattening (ellipticity) of both ellipsoid and spheroid, or f= (a-b)/a; the quantity k has already been explained; 8 and , are coefficients defined by equations (4). If m and f are considered as small quantities of the first order. the equations are accurate to terms of the second order, terms of the third and higher orders being omitted. The third-order terms would require considerable calculation and add little to the real accuracy. The quantity & is assumed to be of the second order. To get the formula of an exact ellipsoid we have merely to put &=0. There is some interest, however, in finding a more exact expression in order to estimate the effect of the omittedLambert—International Gravity Formula. 367 third-order terms. This has been done by Pizzetti(11). He found an exact expression in finite form equivalent to n? $] Vi—esin' ¢ The additional notation needed is e?=(a?—b*) /a® and the expression for C. ‘The value of C is approximately 5/2 and the finite expression is 2( le tan te ) € (= sh Here ¢ is the second eccentricity, connected with e by the relation ee ae—b? é= Though the form for C was not derived in order to find a tricky expression to plague the unwary computer, nevertheless it is such for any value of ¢ that interests us. ‘The value of C may more readily be computed by various series, of which the following are samples: _ 5 _ 13 5, 834 6079 , Cat a eta cama 5 17 1 13 eo =2a-pqa-ity-p-— pp Ce a) laren! waoist'a a sister a as wee For comparison with (3) we can put the expression for gravity on an exact ellipsoid in the form of a series 9=9. [1+8 sin? ¢—B, sin® 2 —B, sin? $ sin? 2 —B, sint ¢ sin?2 —........ ee eee (9) ‘The values of the #’s are 5 17 1 13 Bout a ianie (saga eeainccn ae als OO) B= +28) eee eae a5ono5es ay i 1 B= gh f+ 8B)—So PP (8 f + 4B). ++++ + (12) ete.368 Daly Volume. The values of 8 and f, agree with equations (3) and (4) to quantities of the second order inclusive, and with f=1/297, as is the case for the International Ellipsoid, the third-order terms are practically negligible. For the International Ellipsoid with g.=978.049 gals C = 2.487 507 688 .005 288 384 .000 005 869 .000 000 032 In practice the term in B, and all following terms are dropped, the values of 8 and 8; are rounded off to seven decimal places and the working form of the International Gravity Formula is, the unit being the em/sec®, or gal; g = 978.049 [1 + 0.005 2884 sin® ¢ — 0.0000059 sin? 2.4] (18) In practice the coefficients of sin? $ and sin? 2 $ are treated as if they had the exact values to which they are here rounded off. SECTION 3—DEPARTURES FROM FLUID EQUILIBRIUM. The exact ellipsoid was assumed for the convenience of those who have to compute triangulation. It is of interest to see how much the International Ellipsoid, which has been made the basis of the International Gravity Formula, differs from a spheroid of fluid equilibrium. The answer depends on the density. If the fluid were homo- genous, the spheroid would be an exact ellipsoid; this has been known for about two centuries. If the fluid decreases in den- sity from center to surface the spheroid is depressed in middle latitudes below the surface of an exact ellipsoid having the same axes as the spheroid. The amount of the depression has been calculated by Wiechert(12) and Darwin(10) from definite and quite dif- ferent laws of density. Nevertheless, they reached nearly the same general result, a depression in latitude 45° of about 3 meters. De Sitter(13) discussed the matter from a more gen- eral point of view and Klussman(14) made calculations sim- ilar to Wiechert’s but with a variety of hypotheses. Reduced to a uniform method of statement their results are as follows:Lambert—International Gravity Formula, 369 Value of k Wiechert 0.000 000 44 Darwin 0.000 000 51 de Sitter 0.000 000 50 Klussman 0,000 000 47 to 0.000 000 64 Suppose we adopt de Sitter’s value of k and trace the con- sequences. ‘The depression in latitude 45° is 3.2 meters. Sup- pose further that the matter in the spheroid of fluid equilibrium is redistributed and frozen in its new position in such a way that the outer physical surface is exactly that of the Inter- national Ellipsoid and that this surface is also an equipo- tential surface for the combined effects of gravitation and centrifugal acceleration. How much redistribution of matter will be involved? There is no unique solution to the question of how to redis- tribute the matter to accomplish this result. The simplest way is to assume a surface layer of varying density or varying thickness or both. If we take the density as half the meau density of the earth, or a little more than the average den- sity of granite, the thickness d of the layer will be d=6X% a k P,(sin 6) = 17.5 P,(sin @) (meters) ....(14) where P, (sin $) is the zonal harmonic of the fourth degree, or eg nina Py =p sint 6 — sin? 6 +> This thickness of the layer is shown in Table I. If this matter were then thawed out and allowed to resume its normal place under conditions of fluid equilibrium, the International Ellipsoid would bulge out at the equator and pole and flatten itself in middle latitudes, the change in radius (A,r) would be given by ar = Fak Py(sind) speoosoonenoneS (sy Since P, (sin $)=8/8 at the equator and unity at the poles, the new fluid spheroid (not ellipsoid) will swell out by 8/8 ak=1.2 meters at the equator, and by 3.2 meters at the poles. If we take a new ellipsoid with these new axes and370 Daly Volume. refer the fluid surface to it, the depression (Agr) below the new ellipsoid is given by A.xr= —ak sin* 2¢= —3.2 sin? 2 p (meters)........ (16) ‘The minus sign is used to indicate a depression. The change in gravity (8g) is given by 8g = SEGEP, (sind) ppondEn9cq0q=00000 ar) Here G, as in (1), is simply a mean value of gravity over the earth, since the accuracy obtainable from Stokes’ formula does not require a more precise definition. For the new fluid spheroid the International Formula is changed into g = 978.0495 [1 + 0,0052892 sin? ¢ — 0.0000078 sin? 2] (18) Numerical values of these changes are given in Table I below. Taste I, Showing Differences between International Spheroid and Spheroid of Fluid Equilibrium of Equal Mass. Col, I. Latitude ($). Col. Il. d=Thickness of Stratum needed to reduce Fluid Spheroid to International Ellipsoid, both being equipotential surfaces. For- mula (14). Col. III. Ar=Increase in radius of Fluid Spheroid over International Ellipsoid. Formula (15). Col. IV. Ayr=Depression of Fluid Spheroid below ellipsoid (not interna- tional) having same axes as fluid spheroid. Formula (16). Col. V. 8g=Reduction of Gravity from International Ellipsoid to Fluid Spheroid. Formula (17). Col. I Col. IT Col, TIT Col. IV Col. V Latitude a Aur ar ag ® meters meters meters milligals 0 +6.6 411 $0.5 10 +46 +08 $08 20 01 00 00 30 51 08 04 40 15 -12 06 45; —T1 -12 05 50 —5i 09 04 60 04 +01 00 70 +83 +14 $06 80 +149 $2.5 411 90 ITS: 42.9 +13Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 371 ‘Thas, though the International Formula was adopted with- out special reference to fluid equilibrium, it represents a very slight departure from it, a departure negligible in ordinary questions of isostatic equilibriam. Indeed in view of the non- fluid condition of the crust we can hardly define isostatic equilibrium with an accuracy represented by 17 meters or less of ordinary rock, Nore I. TRE RELATION BETWEEN Gravity aNoMALY (4g) AND GEOID ELevation (N). The true relation for our purposes is given by Stokes* formula, equation (1). A simpler but unfortunately falla- cious relation has cropped out from time to time in the lit- erature of the subject, It occurs in a short treatise by Bruns(16) entitled Die Figur der Erde. In our notation Bruns’ relation is In general Bruns’ work was a contribution toward the clarifi- cation of ideas that until then had often been vague or con- fused, but this formula is an exception. Helmert(16) has several emphatic remarks on the subject. For instance: “In reality formula (19) is utterly useless for the actual computation of N.” “Formula (19) even gives the wrong sign.” After quoting another formula with a coefficient 4/5 instead of 2/8, as in (19), he says: “No one should let himself be deceived regard- ing the value of this formula by the fact of its close agreement with (19).” Helmert also says that Bruns himself was inclined to hedge regarding the general applicability of his own formula, The authority even of a Helmert is, of course, not absolutely conclusive, and Bruns’ formula was revived by Hopiner(17) in a series of articles in Gerlands Beitrdge zur Geophysik. The same volumes of Gerland contain articles by others dis- puting Hopfner’s contention and maintaining the correctness of Helmert’s views, Perhaps the reader who is dismayed by the formidable array of equations and by the subtleties of the theory of the Newtonian potential will find help in Heiskanen’s372 Daly Volume. (18) paper, which is a simple geometrical presentation of the consequences of accepting the views of Brans and Hopfner. Heiskanen shows that, if Hopfner is correct, the deflections of the vertical must be enormously greater than those actually observed. In the view of the writer there is no question that Helmert is correct. To the writer the interest of the dispute is now psychological rather than geophysical, "There is only one kind of N, the elevation of the geoid above the surface of reference, ‘here are several kinds of gravity anomaly, Sg. In current use are the free-air anomaly, the Bonguer anomalies and isostatic anomalies of various sorts, Which one should be used in Stokes’ formula? Hopfner recommended stil} a different kind of anomaly for use in his formula (19) and by inference also in Stokes? for- mula, which apparently he did not challenge. How he reconciled Bruus’ formula with that of Stokes does not clearly appear. Hopfner’s preferred anomaly was the so-called Prey anomaly, an anomaly obtained by applying a correction for topography roughly twice that used in obtaining the Bouguer anomaly. ‘The Prey anomaly is discussed in many of the papers referred to and, in the opinion of the writer, comes off no better than Bruns’ formula, ‘Phe Bouguer anomaly is almost unanimously rejected as unsuitable for use in Stokes’ formula, though it has useful ness of a different kind. There are two schools of thought regarding the relative merits of the free-air and isostatic anomalies. Both schools are substantially agreed that the isostatic anomalies may be used with proper precautions, also that, in the ideal case of gravity anomalies sufficiently numerous and sufficiently densely distributed to be representative, the free-air anomaly is adequate and proper. These precautions required for using isostatic anomalies involve additional computation, not only the computation of the isostatic anomalies themselves but the computation of the deformation of the geoid entailed by the hypothetical transfers of matter implied by the isostatic reductions. The advocates of the free-air anomalies notably Jeffreys(19), believe that all this entails unnecessary labor. Others, such as Vening Meinesz (20), de Graaff Hunter and Bomford(21), and Gulatee(22), believe that, under present conditions, the isostatic anomaly isLambert—International Gravity Formula. 373 preferable and that the additional labor of computation is more than justified. Nore II. APPLICATION OF STOKES’ FORMULA TO ARTIFICIAL EXAMPLES. Some interesting and instructive examples of geoid eleva- tions corresponding to arbitrary distributions of gravity anomalies have been worked out by Schumann(23). The anomaly is assumed to be constant over a circular cap of given radius. Unfortunately the distributions of gravity assumed by Schumann are in general physically impossible, but fortunately it is not difficult to replace them by physically possible dis- tributions to which Schumann’s computed geoid elevations apply exactly. For instance, Schumann assumes an anomaly of +100 mil- ligals over a circular cap 24° in radius. ‘This represents an area about equal to that of North America. But we cannot have an anomaly of +100 milligals over this cap and an anomaly of zero elsewhere, which is what Schumann implies The average anomaly over the whole earth must be zero. To correct this we must reduce all anomalies by 4.8 milligals, giv- ing +95.7 milligals on the cap and —4.8 milligals outside it. But this is not all. ‘The distribution of gravity must “balance” in another way. Conceive each gravity anomaly to be repre- sented by a surface density, positive or negative, proportional to the anomaly and situated where the anomaly occurs. ‘The earth is then covered with a shell of variable density. ‘The center of gravity of this shell must coincide with the center of the earth. In the example taken from Schumann the center of gravity of this shell is displaced toward the cap. To bring it into coincidence with the center of gravity of the earth we must apply the term —12.4 cos @, where 8 is the angular dis- tance from the center of the cap. The whole correction to Schumann's assumed distribution (24-degree cap) is then (in milligals) —4.8 —12.4 cos 8 Similarly for the 8-degree cap the correction is —0.49 —1.45 cos 4; and for the 82-degree cap, —7.6 —21.1 cos & Schumann’s curves of geoid elevation represent considerable labor and they apply perfectly to the gravity anomalies thus corrected. It would be interesting to match them with the corrected gravity anomalies, also to374 Daly Volume. compute the corresponding excesses or deficiencies of density (D) that are the causes both of the gravity anomaly and the geoid elevation, The relation is d=8.66 Agt+2N, where N is in meters, Ag in milligals and d is expressed as thickness (in meters) of a stratum of rock having half the mean density of the earth. Further examples will be found in Lambert and Darling’s publication(24), but the calculation is made only for the center of the cap. They are, however, numerical illustrations of the fact that an arbitrarily “unbalanced” distribution of gravity anomalies will give the same geoid elevations as a physically possible balanced distribution. Nore IIL. THE LONGITUDE TERM IN THE GRAVITY FORMULA. Various authors have proposed an additional term in the formula for theoretical gravity, namely © ge cos® p cos 2(A — Ay), so that instead of equation (3) we have 9=Ge [1+B sin® $—B, sin? 24-+¢ cos? $ cos 2(A—A,) ]. Here ¢ denotes a dimensionless number, A the longitude of the point for which gravity is to be computed, Ay a fixed longitude, the longitude of one of the two points on the Equator for which the longitude term has its maximum positive value; the other such point lies in longitude \,+180°, The other notation is as before, namely, ¢ is the geographic latitude, g, is now the mean value of gravity on the Equator, 8 and 8, are coefficients, which, like c, are dimensionless. ‘A longitude term in the gravity formula is incompatible with the fundamental concept of the International Gravity Formula, namely, a formula corresponding to a predetermined ellipsoid of revolution. However, the question of a longitude term is of interest for its own sake. We have to consider: (1) Why the proposed additional term is of this particular form?Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 375 (2) The various determinations of the parameters, ¢ and Ag, of the new term and their most probable values. (3) The geophysical significance of such a term. The problem of a longitude term is part of a larger and vaguer problem: What is the origin of the present confor- mation of continents and ocean basins? Is it merely the resultant of disturbances of relatively local origin and scope, disturbances that we might vaguely characterize as random, or is it the expression in the main of some few disturbances of world-wide scope at some period in the evolution of the earth? Then there are further considerations; regardless of how the present conformation of continents and ocean basins® came about, we may wish to know how the earth’s gravity field is correlated with the topography. The hypothesis of isostasy is, of course, a partial answer. This hypothesis relates to the visible excesses or deficiencies of matter represented respectively by elevations and depressions in the crust to contra-related and compensating deficiencies or excesses of subsurface density. But, over and above this hypothesis, which is not exactly verified in nature, whatever mathematical scheme may be adopted, is there some other and further systematic correlation between the topography of the earth and its gravity field? We may in time be able to find some sort of answer to this question, even though we cannot satisfactorily explain to our- selves how the present conformation of continents and oceans came to pass. In dealing with the attraction of a nearly spherical body the handiest mathematical tool is the spherical harmonic. We conceive the value of gravity on the surface to be expanded into a series of spherical harmonics beginning with the har- monic of degree zero, and continuing on to those of degree one, two, three, etc. The harmonic of degree zero is simply a constant. There are three partial harmonies of degree one. Each maintains the same sign over a hemisphere, though not the same hemisphere for each partial harmonic. ‘There are five partial harmonies of degree two; each maintains the same sign over an area less than a hemisphere, an area not the same shape in this case for each partial harmonic. Each of the seven partial harmonics of degree three maintains the same sign over a still smaller area. All but one of the harmonics of each degree * For brevity we shall often use the word topography in the special sense of the longer expression, conformation of continente and ocean basins.376 Daly Volume. are called tesseral harmonics. The tessarae are the little blocks making up a mosaic pavement. If we think of a har- monic of high degree on the surface of a sphere and consider the area on the sphere bounded by the lines where the harmonic takes on a zero value, we find that the surface of a sphere is divided by these lines of zero value into small blocks that sug- gest a mosaic; hence the name tesseral. If we are looking for physical interpretations, we think of the harmonics of low degree as expressing general or world- wide causes or effects, those of moderate degree regional causes or effects, those of high degree local ones. Expansion in terms of spherical harmonics may also be a purely formal mathematical process, not related to a prob- lem in gravitational attraction. To correlate our assumed expansion of terrestrial gravity in terms of spherical harmonics with the topography, we assume the topography to be expanded also in terms of spherical harmonics. This has been done by Prey(25), who obtained an expansion up to the sixteenth degree. It has been done in effect by Mader(26) with a more schematized topography and to include only terms of degree two; Mader did not call his work an expansion in terms of spherical harmonics but it amounts to that. In the expansions in terms of spherical harmonics the terms of degree zero, one and two have simple geometrical or mechan- ical interpretations. With a possible exception to be men- tioned later, the harmonies of higher degree do not; they are merely mathematical expressions that must be included in order to represent some desired result. The longitude term in the form stated, cg. cos"? cos 2(A—An) 5 is the first spherical-harmonic term reached, as we make the expansion, beginning with degree zero, and going on to higher degrees, that is not either present in the gravity formula or excluded for good and sufficient mechanical reasons. The harmonic term of degree zero is present, a constant. the average value of gravity on the surface of the earth. The three harmonic terms of degree one cannot be present, as Stokes(27) showed. This is because the values of gravity represented by the formula are values reduced to a level sur- face, the center of gravity of which coincides with the center of the sphere to which the expansion in terms of spherical harmonics refers. If the values were referred to some other surface, terms of the first degree might well be present; asLambert—International Gravity Formula. 377 matters stand, if such terms appear to be present, this is an illusion of some sort, due perhaps to erroneous or inadequate data, ‘The fundamental harmonic, the zonal harmonic of degree two is present. It is ing)= 2 sinto — P,(sin ) = = sin? 6 — J Hence sin? @ = = P,(sing) +> 3. 3 For simplicity let us omit the small term A, sin?2¢. Then the formula (3) for g may be written 9 = ge +p) +S BgePs (sind) sete ee eeeee (20) 1 The term g, (1+-> A) represents the constant term, or term of order zero, already mentioned, The remaining term is proportional to the zonal harmonic of degree two. ‘This zonal harmonic term represents the effects, direct and indirect, of the rotation of the earth, Formula (20) is so written merely to show how gravity is expressed in terms of spherical harmonics. It is not recommended for purposes of ordinary computation. From this zonal harmonic by methods explained in text books on the subject there are derived four tesseral harmonics. The first two are of the form® Az, sin ¢ cos g cos A and B,, sin ¢ cos ¢ sin A. These two may be combined into the term Cu, sin $ cos cos(A—Ay); where Cu, c08 Ay = Any Cy sin dy = Bay Harmonic terms of this sort might conceivably be present in the expression for gravity on the surface of the earth but there is very conclusive evidence—not connected in the least with the gravity observations themselves—that no such term is present. "The subscript 21 is not twenty-one, but a double subscript two and one, two for the degree, one for the order. Similarly for the subscript 22 used in a later paragraph. Sometimes a comma is inserted; thus A, ,.378 Daly Volume. ‘The presence of such a term would mean that the axis of rotation of the earth is not a principal axis of inertia, that is, that the polar moment of inertia about the axis of rotation is not a maximum. In other words the axis of rotation and the axis of figure (in the dynamical sense) do not coincide. This would set a motion in the body of the axis of rotation around the axis of figure. (In space it would be a motion of the axis of figure around the axis of rotation, whose direction in space would remain approximately constant.) This rotation of one axis around the other would set up a periodic variation in the latitudes of places on the earth, There is a variation of latitude but it is so small that the corresponding term in the gravity formula would be only a very minute fraction of a milligal. ‘The tesseral harmonics of the second degree next to be derived from the fundamental zonal harmonic P,(sin $) of this degree are of the form Aq, cos? $ cos 2A and By, cos? $ sin 2 A. ‘These may be combined into the single term Cyq cos? cos 2(A — Ag)s where Cop C08 2 Ay = Aa Cop Sin 2 Ay = Boye This has the form of the longitude term of the form discussed, with Cop=cge. There is no @ priori reason why a term of this sort should not occur in the expression for gravity on the sur- face of an earth with a solid crust. We may anticipate a little and say that the longitude term in the gravity formula corresponds to an ellipsoid of three unequal axes (instead of an ellipsoid of revolution) for the ideal geoid. A spheroid of revolution can be a figure of fluid equilibrium. A spheroid of three unequal axes cannot be.’ However, since the crust of the earth is not fluid, the only physical objection to the ellipsoid of three unequal axes is ‘ Jacobi’s fluid ellipsoid of equilibrium with three unequal axes is not a case in point. The equilibrium for three unequal axes has been proved possible only in the case of a homogeneous fluid. The principal objection, however, is that the figure is like an elongated cigar, bearing no resemblance to the nearly spherical earth.Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 379 the amount of stress to which the inequality would subject the earth. It should be remembered, however, that the ellip- soid of three unequal axes is, by hypothesis, a level surface. Beyond the second degree the harmonic terms have, in general, no simple geometrical or mechanical interpretation, ‘The small harmonic of the fourth degree was included, as has been explained, for a special purpose, namely in the case of the International Gravity Formula, to make the surface of ref- erence an exact ellipsoid of revolution and, in the case of some other formulas, to make the surface of reference a spheroid of fluid equilibrium. Determinations of the longitude term are given in Table I below. East longitudes are taken as positive to conform to the prevailing practice of the sources. Taste II, Determinations of the Longitude Term from Gravity Observations, East Longitudes are positive. Longitude Half dif- of ferenceof Load= Reciprocal Author e maximum semi-axes 10 ca of and unit » ca —meters_—_ flattening Reference Date 0.000001 a meters of rock ft Hill (28) «1884 99 +17 630 2100 287.7 Berroth (29) 1915 16 10 1% 250 2978 ‘Helmert (30) 1915 18 -11 5 883, 296.7 Heiskanen (31) 1924 ca 418 172 513 296.7 Heiskanen (82) 192819 0 121 403 2978 Hirvonen (38) 1933 u —18 10 283 207 Heiskanen (34) 1938 27.6 —25 116 587 297.8 Jeffreys (44) 1942 1238 0 8 261 296.2 *Not determined. ‘The value 297 was assumed. There is partial confirmation of the existence and general character of the longitude term from observations other than those of gravity. Heiskanen(82) found that the tri-380 Daly Volume. angulation of Europe and North America suggested a value of ca of about 100 meters and a value of 4, about 0°. From a more thorough study of the triangulation(35) he found ca=83 meters, 4,=X38°. From a study of the free, or Chandlerian motion of the pole in the variation of latitude, Lambert(36) and Orlow(37), using different mathematical methods, found at least a qualitative confirmation of the lon- gitude term.® Hill’s(28) memoir is mentioned because it is a fair repre- sentative of some of the early attempts to determine a longitude term, for not even Hill himself attached any great importance to the numerical results obtained ; also because the methods uscd by Hill might now perhaps be applied with advantage to the greatcr number of gravity observations now available. Before discussing these results let us consider, for compari- son, the expansion in spherical harmonics of the heights of land on the continents and the depths of the oceans. Ref- erence may be made to an article by Lambert(38), which utilizes the work of Prey(25) and Mader(26). The harmonie of degree zero, a constant, represents average height or depth, and its value depends on the level surface to which heights or depths are referred. It is evident from even a casual inspection of heights and depths on the earth that the earth is lop-sided. Heights of land are concentrated around the land mass of Eurasia and the depths of ocean around the southeast Pacific. Calcula- tion shows that, taking the visible masses at their face value, the center of gravity of the earth is displaced by 625 meters toward a point in latitude 44° N. and longitude 31° E. (Lam- bert’s calculation). Mader’s figures are 672 meters, latitude 50° N., longitude 34° E. In any case the point is near the Black Sea. If there were no isostatic compensation, the visible load, positive or negative, would not represent the total load, for much of the load would be below the geoid and the amount of the above displacement should be approximately doubled. On the other hand, if the visible masses are isostatically ® The errors of observation and the unexplained irregularities in the free motion of the pole are relatively large and the deductions from the obser- vations correspondingly uncertain. Lambert's discussion covers the years 1900-17, Orlow’s 1900-11 inclusive, The gaps in the definitive discussion of the more recent observations of the variation of latitude made by the International Latitude Service have discouraged further investigations along this line.Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 381 compensated, the displacement, though still in the same diree- tion, is reduced to a few meters. But, compensated or not, these first-degree terms and the corresponding displacements of the center of gravity do not enter into the gravity formula, fas has already been mentioned. If an isostatic reduction has been made, however, the gravity observations will have been reduced to the isostatic geoid, which is not the real geoid but has its center separated from the center of gravity of the earth, which is the center of the real geoid; allowance must be made for this fact. The effect of the topography (heights and depths) on the flattening is expressed by a term proportional to the zonal harmonic, P, (sin $) = - sin? 6 — + ‘The visible topography if uncompensated, would give a very substantial coefficient to this term, corresponding to a very substantial effect on the flattening, ‘The polar radius would be increased by over 200 meters, the equatorial radius decreased by over 100 meters and the reciprocal of the flattening increased by about five units. Isostatie compensation would greatly reduce these figures. The latitude variation-term in that topography, that is, the term proportional to sin $ cos $ cos(A—a,), is of special interest. ‘The results for the angular distance, AY, between the pole of rotation and the pole of figure and for ,, the longitnde of the pole of figure, are as follows: No compensation. Lambert-Prey Mader Av 65'.0 58/.6 Ay 132° W. 126° W. Uniform compensation at depth of 100 km. Lambert-Prey Mader Av 60".6 56".6 AL 182° W. 126° W. Thus the uncompensated topography would bring about an impossibly large variation of latitude. Even when isostatic compensation reduces the amplitude (AY) to about a minute of arc, the reduction is still insufficient. ‘There must be some special distribution of mass, not provided for by any general scheme of isostatic compensation, which reduces Ay to a frac- tion of a second.382 Daly Volume. We now consider what the topography would contribute to the longitude term, which is proportional to cos? cos 2(A —Ay). No compensation, Lambert-Prey Mader e 0.000026 0.000022 ca 170 meters 184 meters do 95° E. 98° E. Uniform compensation at depth of 100 km. Lambert-Prey Mader e 0.00000048 0.00000088 ca 2.6 meters 2.0 meters ro 95° E, 99° BE, In comparing the values of A, with those in Table II it should be noted that a change of 90° in A, means a change of 180° in 2 A, and so a reversal of the effect. This reversal seems to occur since an average value of Ay is about 0° and A, for the topography is 95°. This fact was at once noted and caused considerable surprise. The greatest value of gravity occurs at places where, to judge by the topography, a smaller value of gravity would be expected. The amount—for such an apparently widespread inequality—is also rather surprising. It was at first argued by some-that the longitude term was fictitious, a consequence of the isostatic method of reduction. This conclusion is quite untenable: (1) since Helmert, Ber- roth, and Hirvonen used the free-air method, not the isostatic, and found the same general result as the others; (2) compu- tation shows that the effect of the isostatic reduction is too small to affect the general character of the term; (3) there is some confirmation by methods not depending on gravity observations. On the showing so far made the existence of the longitude term in the gravity formula seems fairly well proved, although there is still much uncertainty as to the exact value of the dis- posable constants, c and Ay. Jeff'reys(39), however, raised the question whether systematic regional variations in gravity might not greatly impair the accuracy of the determinations of the longitude term or indeed tend to introduce a largely fictitious term. ‘These regional variations would be expressed mathematicallyLambert—International Gravity Formula. 383 by harmonies of higher degrees. If the gravity observations were distributed over the earth with a fair degree of uniformity, the presence of harmonics of higher degrees would not seriously impair the accuracy of determinations of harmonics of low degree. But the distribution of gravity observations is far from uniform. Observations in the Southern Hemisphere are particularly lacking. On the basis of preliminary computations, Jeffreys concluded that these regional variations were so large that harmonic terms up to at least degree six should be included and that it was hardly worth while to try to find the longitude term. In a later discussion, however, Jeffreys(40) (44) analyses the observations and concludes that the longitude term is real, although its numerical value is more uncertain than Heiskanen’s estimates of error would make it. Jeffrey’s value for c is smaller than any value in Table II on page 379 except Berroth’s and Hirvonen’s. Jeffreys? investigations, however, indicate the existence of other har- monic longitude terms which, given the actual uneven distribu- tion of gravity stations with those in the Southern Hemisphere almost entirely lacking, might simulate the effect of a longitude term of the type here considered and, when omitted, make ¢ appear to be larger than it really is. The column headed “Load= = ca” is the coefficient of the thickness of surface rock of density equal to one-half the mean density of the earth® that is needed to produce the longitude term in gravity and the triaxial figure of the earth. The thickness, positive or negative, at any point (¢, A) is ” eects ANN) ee ee (20) The mass of the load standing on unit area, that is, the pressure per unit area, is the important thing; the result is stated in terms of a rock column of ordinary density merely for concreteness. The pressure in dynes/cm.? is obtained by mul- tiplying the thickness given by expression (20) by g, the accel- eration of gravity in gals, and by 2.76, the assumed density. If we think of the load applied to an ellipsoid of revolution that is also a level surface, the load disturbs this level surface, * Mean density of earth~5,52. One-half of this, or 2.76, is slightly greater than the density of granite.384 Daly Volume. changing it into a triaxial surface, but the disturbed level does not rise to the height nor sink to the depth of the layer of disturbing mass. This type of loading, a loading proportional in thickness to the spherical harmonic disturbance of level, produces the effect sought with the help of as little rearrange- ment of mass as possible. Other rearrangements of mass might produce the effect sought—plus other effects, unknown or undesired—but the amount of matter involved would be greater. For instance, it has been noted that there is a tendency for gravity at sea to be greater than gravity on land. It is natural, therefore, to inquire whether the longitude term might not be due to a general excess of gravity at sea as compared with gravity for the corresponding latitudes on land. The longitude term could be so produced, but the excess at sea would be beyond all reason. To produce the longitude term would require, in addition to the excess mass beneath the oceans implied by the theory of isostasy, additional matter equivalent to the replacement of all the ocean water by very heavy rock. This would mean a general excess at sea beyond anything that has been observed, plus other disturbing effects, for instance in the harmonic that expresses the non-coincidence of the axis of rotation with the axis of figure. On the related problems of the distribution of land and water on the earth and the relation of gravity anomalies to the major features of this distribution, only odds and ends of hypotheses and conclusions are available. For an attack on the second problem we need an analysis of the sort made by Hill(28) but carried to harmonic terms of higher degree, so as to compare them with the corresponding terms of Prey’s(25) expansion of continental heights and oceanic depths. But for this many more observations of gravity are needed, observations more uni- formly distributed over the globe; at present observations in the Southern Hemisphere are very few indeed. Jeffreys’(40) conclusions from his most recent investiga- tions are stated as follows: “Now Prey computed in 1922 coefficients which give the representation of the Earth’s figure’ by spherical harmonics up to degree 16, and from his results" it follows that there is practically no relation between mean height and gravity anomaly for inequalities with horizontal 1 “Figure” is to he taken in the sense of physical surface. 41'The words “when taken in connection with this investigation” are to be understood, W. D. L.Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 385 ranges of about 30°. Thus, the hypothesis of complete compen- sation must be abandoned. To explain the distribution of grav- ity an internal interface seems to be required, whose height has a negative correlation with that of the outer surface. We have, in fact, strong evidence that isostasy is not exact, and are led to some thing of the type of Glennie’s “crustal warping.” The problem of the distribution of continents and oceans over the face of the globe appears nearly insoluble at present. The longitude term in the gravity formula can be connected with a geophysical speculation that at one time found con- siderable favor, Darwin’s theory of the origin of the moon by the rupture of an original earth-moon mass caused by the res- onance effect of huge solar tides. If the mass that is now the moon broke off from what is now the central Pacific area and if the remaining mass that formed the earth was elongated along the corresponding meridian plane in the process, the tri- axial form of the earth and the longitude term in gravity would result. This assumes that the earth has been stiff enough to retain through the ages some traces of the resulting elongated form. This is mentioned in passing as an interesting speculation. Love(41), in attempting to represent the broad outlines of the topography by means of spherical harmonies, noticed the prominence of harmonics of the third degree in comparison with those of the first and second and suggested that this might be due to a kind of gravitational instability. However, Prey’s (25) figures do not-quite confirm Love’s estimate of the relative size of the third-degree harmonics and Love himself char- acterized his own suggested explanation as “rather remote”; so the idea is merely mentioned here. Fi 10 To estimate the stresses due to the load 7% let us adopt 10 3 expressed in centimeters by the assumed density 2.76 and by the acceleration of gravity, 0.98X10* gals, we have for the pressure of the load in ¢ g 5 units a value of ca equal to 100 meters, Multiplying ca 0.90 X 108 dynes/em?. ‘This would be the load at a point on the equator in longitude Ay and )+180°. In longitudes 4,+90° the load would be of equal magnitude but negative.386 Daly Volume. Deep-lying matter within the earth is subject to great stress from all sides. We cannot measure the liability of this mate- rial to fail under the stress by the magnitude of the stress itself; it is generally agreed that the stress-difference is the best available measure of liability to failure. In trying to estimate the maximum stress-difference at various points within the earth we encounter the mathematical difficulty that the maximum difference does not always pertain to to the same pair of stresses; now one pair of stresses and now another may give the maximum difference. ‘There is no very satisfactory mathematical theory of the stress-differences caused by a surface load such as is implied by a longitude term on a body like the earth, Darwin(42) computed the maximum stress-difference for a series of alter- nating mountains and valleys of uniform height and depth and of indefinite extent in the direction of the chains. He found it to be 0.736 times the maximum load positive or negative, or in the present case 0.736X0.90X10 dynes/em?=0.66X10* dynes/em®, Jeffreys(43) with slightly different assumptions found a factor 0.68 instead of 0.736. Darwin also computes incidentally the stress due to a longi- tude term corresponding to a triaxial ellipsoid deduced by Clarke from triangulation. I am not quite satisfied that Darwin's argument is strictly applicable but, at any rate, his figures, when reduced from Clarke’s ca=762 feet to the case ca=100 meters here considered, give as the maximum stress- difference only 0.19X108 dynes/em?. Darwin’s computations are based on the assumption of a uniform solid earth. If we have a liquid core of radius approx- imately half that of the earth, or still more, if the strength is negligibly small below depths where deep-focus earthquakes occur, then still greater demands must be made on the strength of the crust near the surface, if the load represented by a longitude term is to be supported. Jeffreys(46) has treated these cases in a recent paper with special reference to the longitude term and other harmonic terms for the reality of which there seems to be some evidence. He assumes in one case for the radius of the fluid core 0.545 of the earth’s radius; in the other case he assumes fluidity up to 0.9 of the radius. The remaining 0.1 of the radius, or 637 km, is about the depth down to which deep-focus earthquakes have been observed. To make Jeffreys? results comparable with those previouslyLambert—International Gravity Formula. 387 given, they have been multiplied by 100/78, the ratio of the value of ca here assumed and the value determined’ from Jeffreys’ paper(44). Repeating for purposes of comparison some of the figures already given we have the following table. Taste IIT. f Stress-Differences due to a Maximum Load of 833 meters of Rock corresponding to ca = 100 meters, c + 0.0000157. Stress Difference + 0.66 x 108 dynes/em* Earth treated as plane (Darwin) Earth treated as plane (Jeffreys) Stresses minimized . . 0.61 Barth treated as solid sp! + 0.19 Earth with liquid core of radius 0.5464 (i 0.74 Earth with core of no strength, radius 0.90 . - 1.12 xx 10° dynes /em* Except perhaps for the last case, the stress-differences may be considered as of the same order of magnitude. For comparison with the strength of common rock we have for comparison the following figures for various kinds of rock. Taste IV, Crushing Strength of Various Kinds of Rock. Granite . + 145 X 10* dynes/em* Marble . + 100 Limestone . 94 Sandstone . 12 Syenite . 19.2 Diorite . 19.2 Gabbro 116 Gneiss + 15.3 x 10° dynes/em* These figures are taken from Section 9 by Griggs in the Handbook of Physical Constants edited by Birch, Schairer and Spicer (45). The crushing strengths in the table are about ten times the stress-differences due to a longitude term in the grav- ity formula with ca=100 meters, but this does not necessarily mean that the earth could support a longitude term about ten times greater. The whole Section 9 by Griggs is worth reading to show the difficulties of any such comparison. Different specimens of the same rock show widely different crushing strengths. Crush- ing strength measured under the conditions of an ordinary engineering test is not at all the same thing as the limiting strength of a volume of rock deep in the earth. Confining388 Daly Volume. pressure, whether by a steel jacket or by a surrounding liquid, greatly increases the strength; the other tables in Section 9 bring this out clearly. Against this is to be set the effect of temperatures higher than those available in the laboratory and the whole troublesome question of possible flow under long- continued stresses and of viscosity. Whatever the explanation, the fact seems to be that the longitude term is real, though almost certainly smaller than the larger values given in Table II, Other harmonic terms of about the same order of magnitude seem to be equally real, though lack of data has prevented any accurate determina- tion of their numerical values. They do not appear to be closely correlated with the general shape of the lithosphere. The stress-differences implied by the longitude terms and by other similar terms are well under the crushing strength of surface rocks, though any precise numerical comparison of these two kinds of stress would be misleading. The most con- vincing comparison is that great mountain masses like the Alps, the Andes and the Himalayas are supported by the strength of the crust and that the stresses involved are many times those due to a load of 333 'meters of rock corresponding to ca=100 meters. This comparison avoids, however, the troublesome question of the depths at which maximum stress-differences occur. ‘A valuable but little known collection of gravity data, espe- cially useful for previously unpublished data for Russia and Siberia, is that of N. F. Zhuravlev. The English title of the memoir, which is in Russian, is: “Determination of the Flatten- ing of the Earth Spheroid according to gravimetrical Deter- minations.” It forms Vol. XIV, Part 2, of the Publications of the Sternberg State Astronomical Institute of Moscow. (1940). Zhuravlev discusses the gravity observations with various weightings and groupings of the data and reaches results not very different from the International Gravity Formula. In particular he obtains a special formula for cach of 14 different meridians of longitude, each formula being based only on stations lying near the corresponding meridian. ‘These formulas vary widely among themsclves and Zhuravlev believes that their variations do not suggest the presence of a longitude term of the usual type but merely regional irregularities. However, I have tried to represent Zhuravlev’s results forLambert—International Gravity Formula. 389 the various meridians by a longitude term and find that the constants of such a term are determined with probable errors of only a fraction of the constants themselves, so the indications are that the longitude term is real. My results are: Using all 14 meridians 7.6 units of the sixth decimal 5° ca=176 meters This happens to be exactly the result of Heiskanen, 1938, in Table II. The reciprocal of the flattening, however, is 295.2 against Heiskanen’s 297.8. Omitting the meridian of 240° E., which stands out markedly from the rest c= 21.8 units of the sixth decimal dy= 28° 39 meters. ca= The reciprocal of the flattening is 295.1. ‘These figures do not represent the best longitude terms that could be derived from the aggregate of Zhuravlev’s data. They were derived by short-cut methods that can not give any indi- cation of other harmonic terms, such as Jeffreys derived. They do, however, suggest that the principal longitude term is real, though its amount is still rather uncertain. Rerenences. 1. Lambert, W. D.: 1931, Gravity at the Stockholm Meeting of the Inter- national Geodetic and Geophysical Union. ‘Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Twelfth Annual Meeting. Wash- ington, p. 40, Also Cassinis, G.: 1930, Sur Padoption d'une formule inernationale pour la pesanteur normale. Bulletin géodésique, No. 26, April-May-June, p. 40. 2, Heiskanen, W.: 1928, Ist die Erde ein dreiachsiges Ellipsoid? Ger- lands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 19, p. 356. 3. Stokes, G. G.: 1883, On the Variation of Gravity at the Surface of the Earth. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Vol. VIII, p. 672; or Mathematical and Physical Papers, Cam- bridge (England), Vol. II, p. 181. Among the numerous other proofs and discussions may be spe- cially mentioned: Poincaré, H.: 1901, Les mesures de gravité et la géodésie. Bulletin astronomique, Vol. 18, p. 5.390 1. 12. 13, 14. 1B. 16. Ww. 18. Daly Volume. Pizzetti, P.: 1911, Sopra il calcolo teorico delle deviazioni del geoide dal? ellissoide, Atti della R. Accademia della Scienze di Torino. Vol. 46, p. 331. Mineo, C.: 1927, Sulla formola di Stokes che serve a determinare la forma della terra. Rendiconti del Circolo Matemico di Palermo. Vol. 51, p. 1. Idelson, N., and Malkin, N,: 1981, Die Stokessche Formel in der Geodiisie als Lisung einer Randwertaufgabe. Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik. Vol. 29, p. 156. Hirvonen, R. A.: 1934, The Continental Undulations of the Geoid. Veréffentlichung des Finnischen Geodiitischen Institutes, No. 19. Helsinki. Also a’ German summary, 1988, under the title, Uber die Kontinen- talen Undulationen des Geoids, in Gerlands Beitriige zur Geo- physik, Vol. 40, p. 18. 1942, Proceedings of the International Association of Geodesy, Wash- ington, 1939, Published by the American Geophysical Union, Washington, p. 46. Hunter, J. de Graaff: 1935, The Figure of the Earth from Gravity Observations and the Precision Obtainable. Philosophical ‘Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London. Ser. A. Vol, 234, p. 377. de Sitter, W., and Brouwer, Dirk: 1988, On the system of astronomical constants. Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Nether- lands. Vol. VIII, No. 807, p. 213, Airy, G, B.: 1826, On the figure of the earth. Philosophical Trans- ‘actions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 116, pp. 548-578, particularly p. 562. ‘Helmert, F. R.: 1884, Die mathematischen und physikalischen Theorieen der hdheren Geodisie. Vol. II, Leipzig, p. 82. Darwin, G. H.: 1900, The Theory of the Figure of the Earth Carried to the Second Order of Small Quantities. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 60, pp. 82-124; or Scientific Papers, Vol. III, pp. 78-118, particularly pp. 98-94 of the Scientifle Papers. Pizzetti, P.: 1804, Sulla espressione della graviti alla superficie del geoide, supposto ellisoidico. Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Rendiconti, Ser. V, Vol. 3, 1° semestre, p. 165. Wiechert, E.: 1897, Ueber die Massenverteilung im Innern der Erde. Nachrichten von der Kiniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 2u Gottingen, p. 221. De Sitler, W.: 1924, On the flattening and the constitution of the earth. Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands. Vol. Ui, No. 55, p. 97. Klussman, Walther: 1915-18, Uber das Innere der Erde. Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 14, p. 1. Bruns, H.: 1878, Die Figur der Erde; ein Beitrag zur Europiischen Gradmessung. Publication des Kénigl.-Preussischen Geoditischen Institutes. Berlin, p. 26. Helmert, F. R.: See Ref. 9, p. 262. The articles by Hopner under various titles will be found in Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 22-86 (1929-82), Some articles tak- ing a contrary view will be found under the names of Lambert and K. Jung. Heiskanen, W.: 1930, Die Undulationen des Geoids und die Schwere- anomalien. Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 25, p. 148.19. 20. 21. Lambert—International Gravity Formula. 391 Jeffreys, Harold: 1931, An Application of the Free-air Reduction of Gravity, Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 81, p. 378. Vening Meinesr, F. A.: 1939, Explanatory remark in Bulletin géodé- sique No, 62, Edition Definitive, April-May-June, pp. 559-560. Hunter, J, de Graaff, and Bomford, G.: 1981, Construction of the Geoid. Bulletin géodésique, No. 29, Jan.-Feb.-March, p. 22. Gulatee, B. L.: 1933, Figure of the Earth. Gerlands Beitrage cur Geophysik, Vol. 88, p. 426. Also 1938, Gravity Reductions and the Figure of the Earth, Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 53, . 823, Schumann, Ret 1911, Geoidabstinde nach der Formel von Stokes bei schematischen Schwerebelegungen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiser- lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Math.-naturw. Klasse. Vol. 120, Pt. Ta, p. 1658. Lambert, W. D., and Darling, F. W.: 1936, Tables for Determining the Form of the Geoid and its Indirect Effect on Gravity. U. 8. Coast and Geodetic Survey Special Publication No. 199, Washing- ton, p. 104. Prey, Adalbert: 1922, Darstellung der Héhen- und Tiefenverhiiltnisse der Erde durch eine Entwickelung nach Kugelfunktionen bis zur 16. Ordnung. Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gdttingen. Math.-Phys, Kl. N. F. Vol. 11, pt. 1. Mader, Karl: 1927, Der Einfluss der Verteilung von Land und Wasser auf die Trigheitsmomente 4 und B der Erde im Aquator. Ger- lands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 18, pp. 145-184. See Ref. 8. Stokes. Papers, Pages 131 and 141 of collected papers. Hill, G. W.: 1906, Determination of the Inequalities of the Moon's Motion which are Produced by the Figure of the Earth. Astro- nomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, Vol. 8, 1884, pp. 201- 844, or Collected Mathematical Works, Vol. 2, pp. 181-820. Pub- lished by the Carnegie Institution, Washington. Berroth, A: 1915-18, Die Erdgestalt und die Haupttrigheitsmomente A und B der Erde im Aquator aus Messungen der Schwerkraft. Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik. Vol. 14, pp. 215-283. Helmert, F. R.: 1915, Neue Formeln fiir den Verlauf der Schwerkraft im Meeresniveau beim Festlande, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 676-685, 2 Halb- band. Heiskanen, W.: 1924, Untersuchungen uber Schwerkraft und Isostasie. ‘Verdffentlichungen des Finnischen Geoditischen Institutes, No. 4. ——— 1928, Ist die Erde ein dreiachsiges Ellipsoid? Gerlands Beitriige zur Geophysik, Vol. 19, pp. 356-877. See Ref. 2. See ref. (4). Heiskanen, W.: 1938, Investigations of the Gravity Formula, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Ser. A, Vol. 51, No. 8, reprinted as Publications of the Isostatie Institute of the International Asso- ciation of Geodesy, No. 1, Helsinki. + 1929, Uber die Elliptizitit des Erdiiquators. Verdffem- lichungen des Finnischen Geodiitischen Institutes, No. 12. Lambert, Walter D.: 1922, An Investigation of the Latitude of Ukiah, Calif, and of the Motion of the Pole. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Special Publication No. 80, pp. 59-65. Orlow, A.: 1934, Uber die Dreiachsigkeit des Tragheitsellipsoids der Erde aus Breitenbeobachtungen. Comptes rendus de la sep- titme séance de la Commission géodésique baltique. Part IT, pp. 319-340, Helsinki.392 Daly Volume. 88, Lambert, Walter D.: 1930, The Reduetion of Observed Values of Gravity to Sea Level, Bulletin géodésique, No. 26, pp. 165-174. 89. Jeffreys, Harold: 1941, The Determination of the Earth’s Gravitational Field. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geo- physical Supplement, Vol. 5, pp. 1-22. 40, The Figure of the Earth, (Report of a geophysical discussion held Aug. 14, 1942, in the rooms of the Royal Astronomical Society. Several participants, including Harold Jeffreys.) Nature, Vol. 150, 1942, pp. 339-841. A slightly fuller report of the same meeting is given in The Observatory, Vol. 64, No. 810, 1942, pp. 318-325. See also ref, (44). 41. Love, A. E. H.: 1911, Some Problems in Geodynamics. Cambridge, pp. # and 123-125, 42, Darwin, George Howard: 1908, On the Stresses caused in the Interior of the Earth by the Weight of Continents and Mountains. Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 173, 1882, pp. 187-280, with which is incorporated a “Note on a previous paper” in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. 38, 1885, pp. 322-328. ‘The two memoirs fused into one are republished in Scientific Papers, Vol. II, Cambridge, for which the following page subject references are given for the reader’s convenience: Parallel mountain chains p. 481 Equatorial continent p. 490 Strength of various substances p. 494 Summary p. 501 Clarke’s triaxial ellipsoid p. 509 48. Jeffreys, Harold: 1936, On the Stresses in the Earth’s Crust required to Support Surface Inequalities. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement, Vol. 8, pp. 30-41. 44, ——— 1048, ‘The Determination of the Earth's Gravitational Field (Second Paper). Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement, Vol. 5, pp. 55-66, This is the full report of the investigation mentioned in no. (40). There is much more detail in this paper than can even be mentioned here. 45. Handbook of Physical Constants, edited by Francis Birch, J. F. Schairer and “H. Ceeil Spicer. Geological Society of America, Special Papers No, 36. See particularly Section 9 by David Griggs, pp. 107-180. 46. Jeffreys, Harold: 1943, The Stress-Differences in the Earth's Shell. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement, Vol. 5, pp. 71-89. There is much more detail in this paper than can even be mentioned here. Uxrren States Coast ax Grovetic Sunvey, Wasmixoron, D. C.