|
Advisor Chen I-wan:The basic theory holding dominating position in modern seismology is self-conflicting and can not justify itself (the situation abroad)
Author’s Comment: In Feb. – April, 1999 Nature organized an open debate on the issue of Earthquake Prediction on its website. Scholars from seven nations, including those supporting, suspicious and opposing “earthquake can’t be predicted”, from USA, France, Great Britain, Denmark, Japan, Italy and China, submitted several dozen papers, quoting over 200 references by themselves or by others, held a severe debate over a series of issues related to earthquake prediction.
(1) The “earthquake prediction practice” opinion held by a Chinese and the “earthquakes can’t be predicted” opinion held by Prof. Geller.
(2) The debate about “earthquake prediction” organized by Nature.
(3) An important sum-up by Western seismologists to the research work related to earthquake prediction until 1999
(4) The result of the debate caused important negative influence on the seismology community of the world and governmental seismological departments.
(5) Comments on long-term prediction of earthquakes
(6) Comments on immediate alert upon occurrence of earthquakes
(7) Comments on short-term prediction of earthquakes
(8) My views on the requirements to short-term prediction of earthquakes
(9) The historical development of seismology, general situation of research on earthquake prediction and precursors in USA, Japan and Europe at present, and the appraise on modern seismology science by Western seismologists
(10) Research in Japan and USA on earthquake prediction “without obtaining satisfactory results”, "intensive investigations" "in California and elsewhere for some forty years" had not led to any progress towards prediction.
(11) The general situation on research on earthquake prediction: “in Europe any reference to earthquake precursors in a scientific proposal will guarantee that it will not be funded”
(12) “No prediction research program existed before the 1970s and after the short flurry of activity in the mid 1970s, funding in the US and Europe dried up.”
(13) “It is clear that in the US there was never a serious research program for earthquake prediction.”
(14) The successful prediction of the Haicheng earthquake in 1975 and the missed prediction of the Tangshan earthquake in 1976 by the China Seismology Bureau and their effect on the world
(15) Comments by Western seismologist on the basic theories of modern seismology science “Earthquakes are indeed very poorly understood. ...... This textbook picture still poses many fundamental paradoxes, ...... There is no unifying understanding of these paradoxes.”
(16) “We do not yet have a definitive theory of the seismic source”
(17) “Scientifically sound efforts to improve our knowledge of the earthquake source process should be made.”
(18) “Part of our difficulty is a lack of rigour in Earth science.”
(19) Furthermore, modern geophysics, Earth science still is not clear on what is the primary driving force source of continent drifts and tectonic movements?
(20) Modern geophysics, Earth science still is not clear on what is the primary driving force source of the Earth’s structural movement?
(21) Modern geophysics, Earth science still is not clear on what is the primary driving force source of earthquakes and volcanoes?
(22) The basic theories insisted by academic authorities in modern conventional earth science, geophysics, seismology and meteorology contain a series of essential mistakes in wrong research direction! Facing exams by these most basic questions by Nature, they still have not even passed the acceptance level!
(23) Conclusion
Welcome questions and discussions on the issues presented by the author. Address: Xin Shi Ji Commercial Center Rm.316, No.A2 Bai Jia Zhuang Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100020, China. Email: cheniwan@263.net
☞ back to index ☞ back to homepage ☞ back to last page
|