Ebook Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry Basics Ideas Concepts and Examples First Edition Willi Freeden Online PDF All Chapter

Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry
Basics Ideas Concepts and Examples

First Edition Willi Freeden
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/decorrelative-mollifier-gravimetry-basics-ideas-concep
ts-and-examples-first-edition-willi-freeden/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Basics Design Ideas Bert Bielefeld (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/basics-design-ideas-bert-bielefeld-
editor/
Handbook of Water Resources Management Discourses

Concepts and Examples Janos J. Bogardi
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-water-resources-
management-discourses-concepts-and-examples-janos-j-bogardi/
Ideology Studies New Advances and Interpretations 1st

Edition Michael Freeden
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ideology-studies-new-advances-and-
interpretations-1st-edition-michael-freeden/
Basics of 3D Printing First Edition Josef Prusa
https://ebookmeta.com/product/basics-of-3d-printing-first-
edition-josef-prusa/
Cloud Computing Master Cloud Computing Concepts
Architecture and Applications with Real world examples
and Case studies 1st Edition Kamal Kant Hiran
https://ebookmeta.com/product/cloud-computing-master-cloud-
computing-concepts-architecture-and-applications-with-real-world-
examples-and-case-studies-1st-edition-kamal-kant-hiran/
Shallow Water Hydraulics Oscar Castro Orgaz Willi H

Hager
https://ebookmeta.com/product/shallow-water-hydraulics-oscar-
castro-orgaz-willi-h-hager/
Problems And Solutions In Quantum Computing And Quantum

Information 4th Edition Willi-Hans Steeb
https://ebookmeta.com/product/problems-and-solutions-in-quantum-
computing-and-quantum-information-4th-edition-willi-hans-steeb/
Management of Prader-Willi Syndrome 4th Edition Merlin

G. Butler
https://ebookmeta.com/product/management-of-prader-willi-
syndrome-4th-edition-merlin-g-butler/
Evolutionary genetics concepts analysis and practice

First Edition Glenn Peter St Re Mark Ravinet
https://ebookmeta.com/product/evolutionary-genetics-concepts-
analysis-and-practice-first-edition-glenn-peter-st-re-mark-
ravinet/
Geosystems Mathematics
Willi Freeden
Decorrelative
Mollifier
Gravimetry
Basics, Ideas, Concepts,
and Examples
Series Editors
Willi Freeden, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
M. Zuhair Nashed, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Editorial Advisory Board

Hans-Peter Bunge, Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich, Germany
Roussos G. Dimitrakopoulos, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Yalchin Efendiev, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Andrew Fowler, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Bulent Karasozen, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Jürgen Kusche, University of Bonn, Germany
Liqiu Meng, Technical University Munich, Germany
Volker Michel, University of Siegen, Germany
Nils Olsen, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Helmut Schaeben, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany
Otmar Scherzer, University of Vienna, Austria
Frederik J. Simons, Princeton University, NJ, USA
Thomas Sonar, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
Peter J.G. Teunissen, Delft University of Technology, DELFT, The Netherlands
Johannes Wicht, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Göttingen,
Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13389

Willi Freeden
Decorrelative Mollifier
Gravimetry
Basics, Ideas, Concepts, and Examples
Willi Freeden
University of Kaiserslautern
Department of Mathematics
Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
ISSN 2510-1544 ISSN 2510-1552 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-69908-6 ISBN 978-3-030-69909-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69909-3
Mathematics Subject Classification: 31E05, 42C40, 65D07, 65T60, 81U10, 81U40, 86A22, 86A30
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This book is published under the imprint Birkhäuser, www.birkhauser-science.com by the registered
company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Dedicated to my friend
M. Zuhair Nashed
in recognition of numerous fruitful

conversations and mathematical
collaboration over the past 20 years
Preface
In the year 2005, the then Minister of Economics of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hans-

Artur Bauckhage, and the author as the then Vice President for Research and
Technology of the University of Kaiserslautern met on the fringes of an event at
the State Office for Geology and Mining of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz. The topic
was an exchange of ideas about future exploration possibilities in deep geothermal
research. Minister Bauckhage complained about a number of failed drillings in the
past, and he asked the question:
Mr. Freeden, you are a geomathematician. I know that you are involved in the analysis and
interpretation of satellite data. Can you not also use similar mathematical means to improve
our knowledge of the Earth’s interior?
Completely imbued with the thinking of an interested university professor was the
canonical answer:
Mr. Bauckhage, we have no experience whatsoever in dealing with such questions in the
Geomathematics Group. Nevertheless, the scientific task is certainly extremely attractive
and a welcome challenge.
However, without additional funding for personnel, it will be very difficult to transform new
geomathematical ideas and innovative concepts, e.g., into numerically mature tools for the
use in the exploration industry.
The Ministry of Economics of Rhineland-Palatinate subsequently granted start-

up funding for the establishment of a research team within the Geomathematics
Group of the University of Kaiserslautern, so that a research platform, the so-called
“Kaiserslautern Column Model (KCM)” (see Freeden and Bauer 2020 for more
details) could be successfully developed and applied in the field of deep geothermal
energy. KCM resulted in a total of eight Ph.D. theses in the Geomathematics Group,
some of which were published in book form by renowned publishing houses.
In the year 2012, essential parts of KMC went over to a research grant
from the Federal Ministry of Economics Berlin within the framework of the
joint project GEOFÜND (FKZ 0325512A-D), in which the LIAG Hannover,
the Fraunhofer ITWM Kaiserslautern, the company G.E.O.S., Freiberg, and the
Münchner Rückversicherung participated for a period of 3 years (PI Prof. Dr. W.
vii
viii Preface
Freeden, Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern). The main focus

of the research activities was on exploratory seismic methods via new wavelet
techniques, the identification of hot geothermal areas, and the seismic specification
of cost-effective drilling regions including the accompanying fractures in the deep
underground.
In most European countries and, in particular, Germany, seismic is recognized as
the standard method of exploration to such an extent that exploration is usually
equated with seismic. However, in order to reduce the risk of drilling, it is
often advisable to use gravimeter and/or magnetometer data for the analysis of
geological formations before extensive and cost-intensive seismic measurements are
carried out. In order to make this observation more accessible for the exploratory
practice and to provide a deepened justification, the company CBM Gesellschaft for
Consulting, Business and Management mbH, Bexbach, Saarland, decided to take up
the ideas and concepts of the Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern,
on decorrelative potential methods and to conduct intensive numerical test studies up
to the point of usability in the exploration scenario. So, at the end of the year 2014,
Prof. Dr. M. Bauer, CBM, and the author agreed to develop wavelet decorrelation
of geological structures, which had been successfully started using seismic as
an example, also for the potential method of gravimetry under the auspices of
the company, and to validate its effectiveness in areas of the Saarland and its
surroundings that are strongly influenced by anthropogenic mining. From May 2016
to April 2019, CBM realized the research project SPE (Satellite-Based Potential
Methods for Geothermal Exploration, FKZ 0324061, PI Prof. Dr. W. Freeden, CBM
manager Prof. Dr. M. Bauer) with the aim of developing novel concepts for the
application of gravimetric potential methods for initial assessment in the planning
and implementation of geothermal projects.
Since May 2019, the company CBM and the TU Bergakademie Freiberg (Prof.
Dr. C. Gerhards) in cooperation with the NTB Interstate University of Applied
Sciences, Buchs, Switzerland (Prof. Dr. M. Schreiner), have been implementing
the BMWi (D) & BFO (CH) joint project “SYStematic EXPLoration” SYSEXPL
(PI Prof. Dr. W. Freeden). The research project SYSEXPL is planned to run
for a period of 3 years and is based on previous achievements of the projects
GEOFÜND and SPE, in which new and efficient exploration methods for seismic
and gravimetry were successfully investigated. The numerical methods further
developed in GEOFÜND and SPE from research results of the Geomathematics
Group of the University of Kaiserslautern will be transferred to magnetometry
in the project SYSEXPL. In addition, an integrative collection and synopsis of
all decorrelation results from seismic, gravimetry, and magnetometry is another
essential part of the project SYSEXPL.
Based on the gravimetric results obtained in the Geomathematics Group, Uni-
versity of Kaiserslautern (2006–2016), and the gravimetric results obtained in the
research project SPE (2016–2019), the present book conveys the canonical under-
standing and the consequent realization that modern exploration initially requires a
broad spectrum of geoscientific disciplines: In addition to geomathematics in its role
as a key technology developing innovative decorrelation methods by means of multi-
Preface ix
scale analysis, geology, geophysics, and geoengineering are of essential importance.

Geographers, geologists, geophysicists, and geoengineers are responsible for data
provision and processing and for the geological evaluation and interpretation of
innovative geomathematical modeling.
In explorative practice, in fact, it is still considered a standard requirement for the
successful application of gravimetric investigations that the geological structures to
be determined stand out from their surroundings by means of clear density contrasts,
such as a salt dome or a magmatic hotspot. However, the development of ever more
powerful absolute and relative gravimeters with significantly improved measuring
accuracy and the applicability of new geomathematical methods within constructive
approximation in recent years have shown that in future it will be possible to detect
weaker anomalies and model the “normal case of geological layer sequences”.
All in all, the book pursues a double goal within the spectrum of geosciences: On
the one side, it represents a scientific set of rules for today’s geoengineering, which
is interested in the application of innovative modeling and simulation techniques
to promising data sets and structures. Special target groups are geoscientific
institutions, engineering offices, public utilities, and local energy providers and the
entire exploration industry. On the other side, the book serves as a collection of
current material in applied mathematics and geophysics.
For geoscientists, the book project offers significant perspectives and challenges
to go beyond the traditional scientific boundaries.
Trippstadt, Germany Willi Freeden

January 2021
Structure of the Book
The topics to be dealt with in this book (see the scheme below) demand a specific
structure:
• (Chapter 1) The introductory remarks are concerned with geomathematically

oriented remarks about the history and methodology of Earth’s gravitational field
determination. The origin of mollifier approximation is explained, and its specific
role within the book is pointed out.
• (Chapter 2) The geophysical/geodetic ingredients of the Earth’s gravity field are
characterized to the extent necessary for the understanding of the book.
• (Chapter 3) The basic measurement and observational methods of gravimetric
data generation are explained, and the processing and cleansing of gravimetric
data are discussed with regard to their application in explorative practice.
• (Chapters 4, 5, and 6) The presentation of classical results of potential theory is
given as far as it is necessary for the book. By dealing with geodetic boundary
values, we are able to introduce central terms of gravitational field modeling
and the inverse problem of gravimetric exploration, such as disturbing potential,
gravity anomaly, gravity disturbance, deflection of the vertical, and aso.
• (Chapters 7, 9, and 10) Methods of decorrelative gravimetry are developed using
mollifier techniques for both surface and volume exploration. This main part of
the book is handled by a column-by-column subdivision into surface and volume,
thereby documenting in a formal way that a large variety of topics and features
of constructive approximation and mollifier modeling can be treated in parallel.
• (Chapters 8 and 11) Representative applications of multi-scale decomposition of
surface and volume gravimetric signatures are subjected to geological interpreta-
tion.
• (Chapters 12, 13, 14, and 15) These chapters make some general remarks
on mollifier potential methodologies for different exploration areas. Chapter 12
begins with a repetitive overview of the key ideas and concepts of decorrelative
gravimetry. Chapter 13 goes over to decorrelative magnetometry in a dipole-
xi
xii Structure of the Book
reflected framework. Chapters 14 and 15 deal with decorrelative procedures in

acoustic and elastic seismic, respectively.
• (Chapter 16) This chapter is concerned with concluding remarks about mollifier
applicability techniques to subsurface geology in the near future.
• (Chapter 17) The book ends with an Appendix containing supporting material
such as lists of symbols and acronyms.
Content Surface Volume

Geomathematical Chapters 1, Introductory Remarks
background
Geophysical/ Chapters 2 and 3
geodetic
background
Classical Chapters 4, 5, and 6
potential theory
Inverse Chapter 9
potential theory
Decorrelative Chapter 7 Chapter 10
potential theory
(methodology)
Decorrelative Chapter 7 Chapter 10
potential theory
(application)
Potential based Chapters 12, 13, 14, and 15
exploration
Geomathematical Chapters 16, Concluding Remarks
outlook
Lists of symbols Chapter 17, Appendix
and acronyms
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the “Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Berlin”
and the “Project Management Jülich” for funding the projects “GEOFÜND” (fund-
ing reference number: GEOFÜND (FKZ 0325512A-D), PI Prof. Dr. W. Freeden,
University of Kaiserslautern, Germany), “SPE” (funding reference number: FKZ
0324061, PI Prof. Dr. W. Freeden, CBM—Gesellschaft für Consulting, Business
und Management mbH, Bexbach, Germany, corporate manager Prof. Dr. M. Bauer),
and SYSEXPL (FKZ 03EE4002A&B, PI Prof. Dr. W. Freeden, CBM—Gesellschaft
für Consulting, Business und Management mbH, Bexbach, Germany).
The research projects GEOFÜND, SPE, and SYSEXPL funded by the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy within the framework of the
7th Energy Research Programme of the Federal Government were enabled by a
resolution of the “Deutscher Bundestag,” Berlin.
The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Dr. V. Monser and Dr.
K. S. Schreiber, who are the responsible PtJ-corporate managers accompanying
the aforementioned research projects in an exemplary manner. They are always
available for advice and assistance. They thus make a decisive contribution to the
success of the innovative potential methods in exploration and geoscience.
The book represents a consistent setup of concepts and ideas that have been
pursued by the Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern, over the last
15 years. The innovation of the work lies not in the results of the individual chapters
(in fact, some passages of the book have already been published elsewhere according
to their content, some parts are almost translations of contributions in the Springer-
Spektrum book “Dekorrelative Gravimetrie: Ein innovativer Zugang in Exploration
und Geowissenschaften” Freeden and Bauer 2020), but in the presentation of the
underlying geomathematical philosophy in a unifying and clearly arranged synopsis.
Nevertheless, this claim required a number of additions (such as in the multi-
scale theory of splines and wavelets, in the decorrelative mollifier approach to
geomagnetics, etc.), which are published for the first time in this book.
The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. M. Bauer for the opportunity to continue
the GEOFÜND-research activities of the Geomathematics Group, University of
Kaiserslautern, within the framework of the company CBM Gesellschaft for
xiii
xiv Acknowledgments
Consulting, Business and Management mbH, Bexbach, Saarland, and to kindly take
over all administrative tasks related to the research projects SPE and SYSEXPL.
The author is obliged to thank the company CBM for the right of return for the
translations into English and the possibility to use all tables and graphical material
of the Springer-Spektrum book (Freeden and Bauer 2020).
The measurement campaign carried out by the company CBM in 2018 was
supported by the state offices of both Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate. Special
thanks go to Dipl.-Ing. T. Lehnert and Dipl.-Ing. M. Müller, State Office for Sur-
veying, Geoinformation and Rural Development, Saarland Saarbrücken (Landesamt
für Vermessung, Geoinformation und Landentwicklung Saarland, Saarbrücken),
and Dr. G. Berg and Dipl.-Ing. M. Cieslack, State Office for Surveying and
Geoinformation Rhineland-Palatinate, Koblenz (Landesamt für Vermessung und
Geoinformation Rheinland-Pfalz, Koblenz).
In compiling and presenting the results of this book, the author was substantially
assisted by the contributions of the SPE co-workers Dr. C. Blick, Dr. T. Degro,
M. Sc. E. Byamba, Dipl.-Geogr. B. Jakobs, Dipl.-Geol. Z. Hauler, Dipl.-Geophys.
L. Mailänder, Dipl.-Ing. T. Neu, and Dr. H. Nutz. Without the cooperation of
these co-workers, data acquisition by measurement, implementation of the proposed
geomathematical concepts, and completion of the illustration and application part of
this book would not have been possible. In more detail, the author owes gratitude
to T. Neu, E. Byamba, and B. Jakobs for the organization and implementation of
the measurement campaign, and T. Degro and L. Mailänder are to be thanked for
developing certain cleansing methods and the data treatment. The author thanks Z.
Hauler for geological interpretations and preparations in form of maps. Furthermore,
the author is in debt to C. Blick and H. Nutz for the numerical calculations and
the creation of some graphical illustrations within the research project SPE. In
particular, I would like to thank H. Nutz for reading all parts of the book and Z.
Hauler for reading all geologically relevant parts.
The author would like to thank Birkhäuser for giving him the opportunity to
publish this research monograph. Particular thanks go to Dr. T. Hempfling and C.
Tominich for valuable comments and their obligingness and cooperation.
Contents
1 Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Cycle of Measurement and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Potential Methods: Historical Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Potential Methods: Geomathematical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Dirac and Newton Mollifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5 Exploratory Obligations Involving Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Part I Gravitation and Gravimetry

2 Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Gravity and Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2 Newton’s Law and Subsequent Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 External and Internal Earth’s Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4 Key Observational Quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3 Gravimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1 Absolute Gravimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2 Relative Gravimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3 Gravity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Part II Potential Theory

4 Classical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1 Notation and Nomenclature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Key Results of Classical Potential Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3 Newton Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5 Newton–Haar Mollifier Theory and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.1 Newton–Haar Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.2 Haar Mollifier Scaling and Wavelet Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.3 Haar Wavelet-Based Density Decorrelation from Density Data . . . 81
5.4 Haar Wavelet-Based Density Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.5 Multi-Scale Signal-to-Noise Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
xv
xvi Contents
5.6 Haar Wavelet-Based Density Decorrelation from

Potential Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6 Disturbing Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1 Molodensky’s Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.2 Hörmander’s Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.3 Standard Geodetic Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Part III Surface Decorrelation

7 Space versus Frequency Surface Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.1 Spherical Harmonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7.2 Kernel Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.3 Splines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.4 Wavelets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.5 Options in Surface Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8 Surface Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.1 Decorrelation of the Global Earth’s Gravitational
Model (EGM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.2 Mollifier Potential from Gravity Disturbances and Anomalies . . . . 161
8.3 Decorrelation of Gravity Disturbances for Galapagos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.4 Decorrelation of Gravity Anomalies for Galapagos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.5 Mollifier Potential from Deflections of the Vertical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.6 Decorrelation of Deflections of the Vertical for Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.7 Decorrelation of Deflections of the Vertical for Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Part IV Inverse Potential Theory

9 Gravimetry as an Ill-Posed Inverse Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9.1 Ill-Posedness and Regularization Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2 Direct and Inverse Gravimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.3 Heuristic Perception of the Ill-Posedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.4 Space- and Frequency-Based Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Part V Volume Decorrelation

10 Volume Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
10.1 Multi-Scale Dirac Mollifier Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
10.2 Multi-Scale Newton Mollifier Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
10.3 Mollifier Spline Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.4 Mollifier Wavelet Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
11 Volume Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11.1 Test Area Saarland/Palatinate: Initial Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11.2 Surface Decorrelation and Geological Surface Interpretation. . . . . . 319
11.3 Surface Comparison of Gravimetry and Magnetometry. . . . . . . . . . . . 343
11.4 Depth Modeling and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Contents xvii
11.5 Mollifier Spline Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

11.6 Mollifier Wavelet Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Part VI Decorrelative Potential Methods

12 Decorrelative Monopole Potential-Based Gravimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
12.1 Key Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
12.2 Innovative Ingredients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
12.3 Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
13 Decorrelative Dipole Potential-Based Magnetometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
13.1 Essential Constituents of the Earth’s Magnetic Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
13.2 Dipole Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
13.3 Susceptibility and Permeability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
13.4 Inverse Mollifier Magnetometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
14 Decorrelative Acoustic Potential-Based Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
14.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
14.2 Acoustic Wave Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
14.3 Helmholtz Equation-Based Mollifier Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
15 Decorrelative Elastic Potential-Based Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
15.1 From Euler to Cauchy-Navier Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
15.2 Cauchy-Navier Mollifier Method and Decorrelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
15.3 Decorrelation by Cauchy-Navier Wavelets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Part VII Outlook

16 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
16.1 Gravimetric and Magnetometric Mollifier Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
16.2 Tomographic and Scattering Mollifier Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Part VIII Appendix

17 Supporting Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
17.1 List of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
17.2 List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
About the Author
Willi Freeden Studied Mathematics, Geography,

and Philosophy at the RWTH Aachen University,
1971 Diploma in Mathematics, 1972 Staatsexamen
in Mathematics and Geography, 1975 PhD in Math-
ematics (RWTH Aachen University), 1979 Habilita-
tion in Mathematics (RWTH Aachen University)
1981/1982 visiting research professor at the Ohio
State University, Columbus (Department of Geode-
tic Science and Surveying), 1984 professor of Math-
ematics at the RWTH Aachen University (Institute
of Pure and Applied Mathematics),
1989 professor of Technomathematics (Industrial
Mathematics) at the University of Kaiserslautern, 1994 head of the Geomathematics
Group,
2002–2006 vice president for Research and Technology at the University of
Kaiserslautern.
Organized over 45 international conferences and mini-symposia all over the world.
Published 22 books as author and/or editor and more than 215 journal contributions.
2009 founding editor in chief of the Springer “International Journal on Geomathe-
matics (GEM).”
2010 editor in chief of the Springer “Handbook of Geomathematics.”
2014 editor in chief of the Birkhäuser book series “Geosystems Mathematics.”
2014 editor in chief of the Birkhäuser “Lecture Notes on Geosystems Mathematics
and Computing.”
Member of the editorial board of a large number of international journals.
1989 Fellow of the International Association of Geodesy (IAG).
1996 Member of the German Geodetic Commission of the Bavarian Academy of
Sciences, Munich.
2018 IPMS (Inverse Problems: Modeling & Simulation) Award,
2020 Vening Meinesz Medal: Award of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
xix
Chapter 1
Introductory Remarks
An essential objective of mathematics is to create settings and concepts to better

understand our world. Mathematics is present in everyday life. Even more, almost
all sciences undergo a process of “mathematization” due to increasing technological
progress.
What is exactly that enables the mathematicians to provide the transfer from
concrete measurements and observables to abstract mathematical formalisms and
models? Some programmatic answers should be given at this early stage essentially
inspired by the contributions in Freeden (2009, 2015), Freeden et al. (2019):
• The mathematical world of numbers and structures contains efficient tokens by
which the rule-like aspect of problems can be described appropriately. This
description includes as an essential step a simplification by abstraction. The
principal impact of abstraction is to allow the replacement of a continuous
signal by a discrete set preferably with minimal loss of any information. So,
simplification by abstraction consists of specifying the criteria under which the
original continuous signal may be reproduced.
• Essential properties of a problem are separated from unimportant ones, fur-
ther specified, and afterward included into a solution scheme. The “eye for
similarities” often enables mathematicians to recognize a posteriori that an
adequately reduced problem may also arise from very different situations in
various application areas, so that the resulting solutions may be applicable to
multiple settings after an adequate adaptation or concretization. Without this
ingredient, the abstraction remains essentially useless.
• The interaction between abstraction and concretization characterizes the history
of mathematics and its current development as a common language and an
independent standard. A problem reduced by abstraction has to be considered as a
new “concrete” problem to be solved within a general framework, that determines
the validity of a possible solution.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

W. Freeden, Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry, Geosystems Mathematics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69909-3_1
2 1 Introductory Remarks
• The more examples and facets one knows, the more one recognizes the causality
between the abstractness of mathematical concepts and their impact and cross-
disciplinary significance.
• Validation of examples is an overall guiding principle in mathematics, particu-
larly in approximation. It is the presumption for the mathematical applicability
to diverse areas of research.
A particular discipline guaranteeing the mathematical “eye for similarities” and the
applicability to diverse areas of research is geomathematics. It is a key discipline
for observing, understanding, and forecasting the complexity of the system Earth
(cf. Fig. 1), in particular for the responsible subsystems involved with gravitation.
Mankind is living in a world of rapid climate, environmental, and societal change.
Emphasis must be also put on the interactions with the ecosystem. For all these
interactions to be managed, there is a strong need for geomathematical research
that becomes increasingly apparent. Understanding geophenomena requires the
handling and analyzing of data. Usually, data sets are discrete manifestations of
continuous processes of the system Earth.
As an urgent consequence, geosciences have to take care in maintaining and
improving the links between the Earth’s system and its simplifications by theories,
models, and simulations based on discrete data sets. The building bridge between the
real world and its virtual counterpart based on mappings in form of measurements
and observations is one of the fundamental roles of geomathematics.
Biosphere
ere
Atm
sph
osp
dro
her
Hy
Geosystems
Mathematics
ere
Ge
sph
osp
o
op
her
thr
e
An
Pedosphere
Fig. 1 “Geosystems mathematics” as a key technology for penetrating the complex system Earth
(see, e.g., the presentations in Freeden (2009, 2015))
1.1 Cycle of Measurement and Modeling 3
1.1 Cycle of Measurement and Modeling
Geomathematics (cf. Freeden (2009), Freeden et al. (2019)) is devoted to the

qualitative and quantitative properties of the currently existing or possible structures
of our Earth system. Geomathematics is the pate of the concept of scientificity
in Earth system research. The system Earth consists of a number of systems,
which themselves represent a system. The complexity of the overall system Earth
is determined by interacting physical, biological, and chemical processes that
transform and transport energy, material, and information. It is characterized by
interdependencies of natural processes with social and economic processes that lead
to mutual interaction.
The Earth is a prime example of a complex system with interacting natural and
socioeconomic subsystems (cf. Fig. 1). In the consequence, a simple cause-effect
thinking is completely unsuitable for an appropriate understanding. What is required
is thinking in dynamic structures and the awareness of multiple, unforeseen,
certainly sometimes undesirable effects in changing processes. Inherent networks
must be recognized and used, and self-regulation is to be considered (for more
details, see, e.g., Emmermann and Raiser (1997)).
All the aspects described above indispensably demand a mathematics, which
must be more than a collection of theories and numerical procedures. Rather,
geomathematics is nothing more than an organization of the complexity of the
system Earth. This includes descriptive thinking to clarify abstract complex issues,
proper simplification of complicated interactions, an appropriate mathematical
system of concepts for description, and accuracy in thinking and formulating.
Geomathematics thus becomes the key science of the complex system Earth (see
Fig. 1).
Wherever there are data and observations, e.g., with the various scalar, vectorial,
and tensor clusters of satellite data or terrestrial gravitational field and/or magnetic
field data, it becomes mathematical. Statistics serves for denoising, constructive
approximation provides compression and evaluation of data systems, special sys-
tems of functions give geo-relevant graphical and numerical representations, all this
with mathematical algorithms.
From our comments, it becomes clear that geomathematics as the mathematics
dedicated to the Earth sciences becomes increasingly important also in the field of
exploration. It has the special task of building a bridge between mathematical theory
and geotechnical application (see Fig. 2). The special attraction of geomathematics
(see also Freeden (2009)) is therefore based on the lively exchange of ideas between
on the one hand the more in modeling, theoretical foundation, and approximate
and numerical problem solving interested group of applied mathematicians and
on the other hand the more with measurement technology, methodology of data
analysis, implementation of routines, and software application familiar group of
geoengineers.
The spectrum of modern geosciences, which is in the focus of geomathematics
(see Fig. 2) is broad, not least because of the ever-increasing diversity of observa-
tions. At the same time, the “box” of mathematical tools is enlarging. It should be
s
on
g cti ations
seism geo ravit n
fu equ
ma at al l
olog
y, ex gneti ion eci tia rms
sp fferen transfo
geomo p lora sm di egral
rpholo
gy/ge tion theory
olo int oximation
ocean circul gy appr tochastics
ation statistics/s
climate, weather, hydrology Geo- mathematical physics
ics mathematics function
plate tecton ics invers al analysis
s / d y nam y sign e proble
chanic log var al-/sam ms
geome chno on
l l i te te igati ng nu iatio
me na
plin
g th
sate nav sensi ric l ca eory
s/d lcu
ote ata lus
rem sys
tem
s
Fig. 2 Geomathematics, its fields of activity, and its working methods (in modified form from
Freeden (2015), see also Freeden and Schreiner (2020))
noted that geoengineering and geophysics are mainly concerned with those areas of
the Earth that are insufficiently accessible or not accessible for direct measurements.
For this reason, remote sensing methods are often used, and inverse methods for
evaluation are inevitable. These usually amount to the situation that a physical field
is measured close to the Earth’s surface and then continued with mathematical
methods into the depth and/or height ranges of interest (“downward and upward
continuation”).
Geomathematics
real virtual
observation
modeling
world world
Fig. 3 Geomathematics as a key technology bridging the real and virtual world (illustration in
modified form from Freeden and Schreiner (2020))
1.1 Cycle of Measurement and Modeling 5
observation (= measurement) modeling (= solution) on

of occurrences in the basis of data in “virtual
“real space” space”
transfer (bridge)
distance, potential theory,

direction, inverse problems,
angle, constructive
velocity, approximation,
acceleration, ... numerics, ...
retransfer (interpretation, validation)
Fig. 4 Circuit “real space” (observation) and “virtual space” (modeling) in modified form
following W. Freeden (2018), Introduction to the “Handbook of Mathematical Geodesy”
For the present day, computers and measurement technology have led to an
explosive spread of mathematics, in general. Mathematics as a cross-sectional
science permeates almost all areas of our life and society. As a result, mathematics is
in close interaction with the Earth, nature, environment, technical, and economic sci-
ences up to medicine and parts of the humanities (“Mathematization of Sciences”).
Today, the use of the computer enables us to treat complicated models to real
data sets. Modeling, calculation, and visualization lead to reliable simulations of
processes and products. Mathematics is the “raw material” of the models and
the essence of every computer simulation; it forms the mediator (i.e., the key
technology) to convert the images of the real world into models of the virtual world
and vice versa (Figs. 3, 4).
In recent years, the special role of mathematics as a cross-sectional science
has been increasingly recognized by technology, business, and the skilled trades.
Relationships and references to other disciplines (especially computer science,
physics, chemistry, biology, but also physical and anthropogenic geography, and
economics) are becoming increasingly important, more interesting, and expandable.
In other words, the problem areas of mathematics become vivid and observable
and originate from different areas, which undoubtedly and naturally includes the
geoarea.
All the aforementioned generally valid aspects explain why geomathematics is a
key technology for potential methods in exploration. Nonetheless, there are specific
features which should be additionally highlighted to understand and appreciate the
particular role of geomathematics in explorative research, namely:
• the historical stages and developments via the Newtonian ideas and concepts
in gravitational field theory leading to new gravimetrically reflected multi-scale
procedures and decorrelation abilities,
• the methodological developments from the first mathematical testimonies up
to the modern theories and tools in mollifier approximation leading to new
regularization techniques in ill-posed inverse problems of potential theory.
1.2 Potential Methods: Historical Stages
Like the gravitational field, the magnetic field is a vector field. Gravity and magnetic
exploration techniques are both passive in that they exploit naturally existing fields
of the Earth. The measured quantities are integrated effects of the subsurface and
need to be decorrelated in order to offer interpretability.
Gravity and magnetic field inversion leading to density distribution and material
magnetization, respectively, may be described both by inverse problems of potential
theory. Both problems may be formulated by a Fredholm integral equation of the
first kind. Both problems lack well-posedness, from which the non-uniqueness is a
dramatic feature. So, there is a long history to apply gravity and magnetic methods
and tools in parallel.
However, there are also considerable differences: The density distribution in
Newtonian gravitational theory is a scalar function, while the material magnetization
is of vectorial nature. The gravitational field points to the center of mass of the Earth,
while the magnetic field may be understood as similar to a bar magnet at the Earth’s
center (cf. Fig. 5).
In order to understand gravitational and magnetic fields for specific purposes
of geoexploration, an explanation of the history of geoscientific laws that govern
these fields is useful. Some milestones on the way to current potential methods of
gravimetry and magnetometry are in the following list, which, however, does not
reflect the huge modern developments during the last decades in theoretical and
practical perspective.
Earth Earth
Fig. 5 The gravitational field lines are monopolar, i.e., they point to the center of mass of the Earth
(left), while the magnetic field lines are dipolar (as roughly indicated right)
1.2 Potential Methods: Historical Stages 7
ca. 1600 G. Galilei (1564–1642): Laws of falling objects,

ca. 1600 W. Gilbert (1544–1608): Founder of the doctrine of Earth magnetism,
1615 W. Snellius (1580–1626): Triangulation methods in grade netting,
1650 C. Huygens (1629–1695): Wave propagation,
1676 R. Hooke (1635–1703): Elastic deformation of solids proportional to the applied
load (linear-elastic behaviour), relation between spring balance elongation and
acceleration due to gravity (Hooke’s law),
1687 J. Newton (1643–1727): Laws of gravity,
ca. 1690 E. Halley (1656–1742): Width dependence of the gravitational acceleration,
ca. 1715 P. Bolugner (1698–1758): Isostatic compensation of the mass distribution of the
Earth’s crust,
1743 A.C. Clairaut (1713–1765): Calculation of the pole flattening of the Earth,
ca. 1780 A.M. Legendre (1752–1833), P.S. Laplace (1749–1827): Development of
spherical harmonics,
ca. 1820 H.C. Oerstedt (1777–1851): Influence of electric currents on a magnetic needle
(beginning of electromagnetism),
ca. 1820 J.B. Biot (1774–1862), F. Savart (1791–1841): Generation of a magnetic field by
electric currents (“Biot-Savart Law”),
ca. 1835 C.F. Gauss (1777–1855): Beginnings of potential theory, magnetic field
developments by means of spherical harmonic expansions, electric currents in
upper atmosphere (as hypothesis), reference to the ellipsoidal Earth shape
approximation and the basic conception of the geoid,
ca. 1849 G.G. Stokes (1819–1903): Research about gravity variations, Earth’s disturbing
potential, geodetic boundary value problem,
ca. 1865 C.G. Neumann (1832–1925): Boundary value problems of potential theory,
ca. 1860 P.v. Jolly (1809–1884): Determination of vertical gravity gradients,
1872 J.B. Listing (1808–1882): Definition of the level surface of the geoid (according
to the concept initiated by C.F. Gauss),
ca. 1878 B. Stewart (1851–1935): Basic idea of the dynamo theory in magnetics,
ca. 1880 F.R. Helmert (1843–1917): Founder of the mathematical and physical theories of
modern Geodesy,
ca, 1907 A. Schuster (1851–1934): First quantitative dynamo theory,
ca. 1928 F.A. Veining Meinesz (1887–1966): New gravimeters, investigations of the
gravity deflection of the vertical,
1929 O.D. Kellogg (1879–1932): Standard textbook on classical potential theory (his
doctoral advisor was D. Hilbert in Göttingen),
ca. 1930 Gravimetric determination of salt domes, geomagnetic deposit search (beginnings
of the theory of “inverse problems” (e.g., Weyl’s law, 1911)),
1960 M.S. Molodensky (1909–1991): Geodetic boundary value problem,
1975 L. Hörmander (1931–2012): Boundary value problems of Physical Geodesy and
their linearizations,
since 1970 3D-seismic (tomographic methods),
since 1980 Wavelet methods in Geophysics.
This incomplete list, essentially related to the history of geoscientific exploration

up to the first half of the last century, already explains that proper geomathematical
understanding is a key factor in exploratory research.
Gravimetric and Magnetometric Stages There are no magnetic monopoles
(in contrast to gravitation), and, hence, dipoles (and higher-order poles such as
quadrupoles aso) are the principal constituents of magnetic fields. Magnetic poles
can be repulsive or attractive; they are not always attractive as in the gravity
case. As a consequence, the geophysically close construction of gravimetrically
and magnetometrically reflected wavelets has to reflect the monopole and dipole
character of the potentials to be investigated. Therefore, the mathematical treatment
of decorrelation methods in gravimetry and magnetometry is different. Moreover,
the theoretical and methodological technicalities in decorrelative gravimetry are
much less than in decorrelative magnetometry. In fact, the numerical aspects of
decorrelative magnetometry are still in the developmental stage, and the inter-
pretability of the results obtained so far is less meaningful than in gravimetry.
As a consequence, the present book addresses these shortcomings by focusing
almost exclusively on gravimetry. Only in our conclusions we turn to decorrelative
magnetometry, but mainly to explain its basic constituents.
Turning to the gravitational theory, the principles of interest for this work began
with G. Galilei in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In famous
experiments, Galileo showed that gravitational acceleration is the same for all
objects. This observation was the departure from Aristotle’s belief that heavier
objects have a higher gravitational acceleration. Galileo’s work set the stage for the
formulation of Newton’s theory of gravity. In 1687, the mathematician I. Newton
published his Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse square law of universal
gravitation. Newton’s theory enjoyed a great success when it was used to predict
the existence and movement of planets.
By the end of the nineteenth century, it was known that certain orbits showed
slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton’s theory,
but all searches for a perturbation had been unsuccessful. The discrepancy was
resolved in 1915 by A. Einstein’s new theory of general relativity. Although
Newton’s theory has been superseded by A. Einstein’s general relativity, most
modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still based on Newton’s theory.
The reason is that it is simpler to work within Newton’s ideas. Moreover, Newton’s
theory gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications. Thus, even nowa-
days, concepts of exploration and prospecting are still treated in terms of Newton’s
framework, and it is believed that there is little error.
1.3 Potential Methods: Geomathematical Aspects
In the second edition of the “Handbook of Geomathematics” 2015, T. Sonar starts

his contribution with the sentence:
1.3 Potential Methods: Geomathematical Aspects 9
Geomathematics in our times is thought of being a very young science and a modern area in
the realms of mathematics. Nothing is farer from the truth. Geomathematics began as man
realized that he walked across a sphere-like Earth and that this observation has to be taken
into account in measurements and calculations.
Geomathematics and Its Early Flowerings According to the surviving testi-

monies, (geo)mathematics originated in Sumerian Babylon and in ancient Egypt
from the practical tasks of measuring, counting, and calculating for field cultivation
and stock-keeping (cf. Fig. 6). Formulas for area and volume calculation were
already available tools.
Probably Thales of Miletus first dealt with natural science in Greek antiquity.
Thales was born in the 39th Olympiad, around the year 624/623 BC, and died
at the age of 78 in the 58th Olympiad, between 548 and 544. Thales learned
geometry from the Egyptians. He stayed in Egypt (and also in Crete) for a while
for research purposes and learned from priests and astronomers in the fields
of mathematics and astronomy. After Aristotle (of particular importance is his
publication “Metaphysics”), Thales of Miletus was the first philosopher to ask
the question of the origin of all things. Aristotle (384–322 BC) is considered the
most important scholar and scientist of ancient Greece. His teacher was Plato, but
Aristotle either founded or significantly influenced numerous disciplines, including
the theory of science and natural philosophy.
The Alexandrian Eratosthenes (276–195 BC) found that at the time of the summer
solstice, the sun’s rays reaching Syene (the Aswan of today) fell vertically into a
well, while they in the Alexandria, which is approximately located on the same
Fig. 6 Papyrus scroll containing indications of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry due to
Ahmose (nineteenth century BC) (Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, British Museum EA
10057, London, Creative Commons License CC-BY-SA 2.0) taken from Sonar (2011): 3 000 Jahre
Analysis, Springer, Heidelberg
meridian, formed a deflection of the vertical, which he determined with the shadow
rod at 7◦ 12 . The distance from Syene to Alexandria he estimated from the camel
travel time of 50 days and a daily output of 100 stadia at 5 000 stadia. With the length
of the Attic stadium (i.e., 185 m), we get an Earth radius of 7 360 km. This value
only deviates 16% of the radius of a central globe (6 371 km). Another determination
from antiquity comes from Posidonius (135–51 BC), who determined the Earth
radius from the meridian arc Alexandria to Rhodes with a deviation of 11%. So,
geomathematics experienced sustainable flowering times in antique Greece.
Geomathematics as Generically Constituted Discipline No branch of mathemat-
ics has influenced general scientific thinking more than the mathematical theories
that were originated in physics such as mechanics. There is no doubt in the
mathematical community that the result of this influence on “reality” is the most
characteristic feature of our technical civilization. However, a statement of such
generality, although accepted by most mathematicians, is probably questioned by
physicists. The reason for this disagreement lies in the lack of a generally accepted
definition of what is appropriate as “mathematical thinking.”
In the following, influenced by thoughts in Müller (1961) and Freeden (2009,
2015), Freeden et al. (2019), and Freeden and Schreiner (2020), we shall first
make the attempt to show the different tendencies in the ways of thinking of
mathematical and physical science. In a second step, then this will characterize the
specific interaction of geophysics and geomathematics, also with regard to potential
theoretic methods.
From a historical perspective, geometry (etymologically derived from the ancient
Greek γ εωμετ ία, geo- “Earth”, and μέτ oν “measurement”) is one of the
most important contributions to mathematics. Early geometry was a collection of
empirically discovered principles that included concepts such as distance, angle,
area, and volume. They found their application in surveying and craftsmanship.
The earliest known texts concerned with geometry are the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus
(2000–1800 BC), the Moscow Papyrus (roughly 1890 BC), and the Babylonian clay
tablets (roughly 1900 BC).
A few centuries later, the Greeks themselves replaced the term “geometry,”
which had lost its original meaning by “geodesy,” as a new designation for an
abstract theory of the “Earth’s surface,” while geometry now reflected mathematical
rigor through its axiomatic-methodological purpose. In the third century before
Christ, geometry was brought into an axiomatic form by Euclid. The study of
“Euclid’s Elements” (see Fig. 7) became the standard for many centuries. This work
transferred the heritage of mathematics from antiquity to our time. Geometry is
thus the earliest example of a formal approach still used in mathematics today,
namely, axiom, definition, lemma, theorem, and proof. In fact, “Euclids Elements”
was known to all educated people in the western hemisphere until the middle of the
twentieth century, and its contents are still taught in the school subject of geometry
today.
The desire for intellectual strength, the wealth of knowledge, and the high
standard of thinking testify to the great importance of mathematics in classical
Fig. 7 “Euclid’s elements” is by far the most famous mathematical work of classical antiquity. It
is the oldest mathematical textbook in the world and is still in continuous use today
Greece. It should be mentioned that Islamic scholars preserved the Greek ideas and
spread them in the Middle Ages. In the early seventeenth century, geometry was
put on a solid analytical foundation by mathematicians such as R. Descartes (1596–
1650) and P. de Fermat (1607–1665). From that time until modern times, geometry
has been further developed into non-Euclidean geometry, which is below the normal
range of human experience.
While geometry evolved over time, there are some general concepts that are more
or less fundamental. These include the concepts of point, line, angle, curve, plane,
surface, and volume, as well as the more advanced concepts of manifold, topology,
metric, and norm.
Historians use the term “modern” (also in Earth’s sciences) for the period since
the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. Geoscientists usually call I. Newton
(1643–1727) the first modern scientist. The special emphasis as a systematic study
of laws such as Newton’s approach to gravity allows us to recognize “Philosophiae
Naturalis Principia Mathematica” (cf. Fig. 8) as highly characteristic of our time.
Newton’s book also initiated a new discipline of mathematics, the Analysis, which
since its early beginnings is so closely related to physics and physical geodesy (see
the comments by Freeden and Sansò (2020)) that it is difficult to say where physics
ends and mathematics begins.
The history of the exchange of ideas between mathematics and physics is indeed
fascinating. Unfortunately, it is so intricate that its full extent still needs to be
investigated. Nevertheless, there is a wide variety of fundamentally different ideas
Fig. 8 Sir Isaac Newton’s own first edition of his “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”
with his handwritten corrections for the 20th edition. The book has been digitized by the Cambridge
University Library. It can be viewed in the Cambridge Digital Library along with other original
works by I. Newton
and concepts and a growing change in the aspects involved in these problems
(see Freeden and Schreiner (2020)). Therefore the conclusion is logical, that the
establishment and setting of basic structures for theories which are concerned with
the real world (“reality”) represent a major contribution of mathematics to modern
(geo)scientific progress.
Apart from the mathematical aspect of the value of a theory, there is consequently
a practical side, which is even more important. If the theory is perceived in accor-
dance with the experience, it makes the execution of an experiment unnecessary.
This is of course extremely important, where experiments are not possible.
• One of the best examples of a field in which one could not conduct experiments
is possibly astronomy. In this respect, it was not surprising that a new approach to
features of the “real world” had its obvious success when it became apparent to
derive Kepler’s empirical law of planetary motion from Newton’s general law of
mechanics. The same conceptual development is evident in space research today,
and satellite technology is another area where experiments are common practice
today.
• In exploration, too, experiments are hardly feasible, and if they are strained
by drilling, for example, they are very expensive. It is therefore essential to
formulate a theory for the expected geology in such a way that the agreement
with experience is guaranteed at least for the few test models developed in the
last decades. Nonetheless, the representative character of these test models and
the pursuit of a mathematical “theory of universal healing” is a fiction.
There may also be articulated a difference between “pure mathematics,” which

claims to provide universally optimal solutions, and “applied mathematics,” which
can only guarantee the claim of optimality under certain specific aspects (which also
applies to the geomathematical application in exploration).
Nevertheless, there are two major trends in any kind of mathematics, neither of
which can exist without the other:
• The first trend is the discovery of laws within mathematical structures.
• The second is to make these structures as powerful and applicable as possible
through a process of generalization and extension.
For example, geomathematics (also and especially with regard to gravimetry) is a
generic discipline that is permeated by an alternative that can be characterized as
follows:
• On the one hand, the scope of mathematics contains many results that are valued
for their generality.
• On the other hand, many problems to be solved have a very special nature. They
deal with questions of great individuality in the sense that the theories derived so
far do not yet contain the information to shed light on the specific ingredients of
the assumptions to be clarified.
One of the best examples of showing differences in the accentuation of mathe-
matics, physics, and geoengineering is the theory of gravitation. Actually, the theory
of gravitation has played an important role in the history of science from every
angle. It is undoubtedly well suited to detecting the various trends in thinking that
have emerged in the various branches of geoscience.
The geodetically reflected and geomagnetically oriented potential determination
was in a fortunate position in the time after C. F. Gauss, since Newton’s gravitational
field theory had already reached a mathematical status that had been naturally
extended to guarantee a comprehensive description. As a consequence, the concept
of potentials, and thus potential theory as a scientific collection of ideas, concepts,
and structures around the Laplace equation, gained new perspectives and advanced
to new challenges, of which the boundary value problems are probably the best
known.
Potential theory managed to prove the validity of the fact that certain values of
a potential on the boundary of a body such as the Earth are sufficient to provide
the solution of a boundary value problem, e.g., a harmonic function in the (empty)
outer space of the Earth with regularity constraints imposed at infinity. Boundary
value solutions had been tested in many experiments, e.g., under geodetic auspices,
but they could not be verified experimentally in the general public, as it is viable
with a mathematical approach.
Exploration using potential theoretical methods, however, is in a much more
difficult position, since, unlike boundary value problems, it does not lead to a “well-
posed problem,” so that usually neither existence, uniqueness, nor stability to given
input information may be assured.
If we concretize our statements, it can be said that at a stage where the theory
can be considered sufficient from a geophysical point of view, it constitutes a
system of fundamental laws, definitions, and problems, few of which can already
be considered solved from a mathematical point of view. Problems in their full
generality, however, are handed over to mathematics as assumptions in the sense
that they should be mathematically confirmed. They thus become canonically the
object of a study of well-posedness, i.e., existence, uniqueness, and stability. The
aim is to ensure the confirmation of the consistency of the general physical theory.
All in all, the mathematical aspects of the well-posedness of “forward problems”
of potential theory, which infer from “cause to effect,” are fully understood today.
Boundary value problems, e.g., for determining the external gravitational field of the
Earth from certain potential boundary data, are well understood and can be realized
stably (also in numerical way).
Completely different, however, is the situation with “backward problems,” i.e.,
inverse problems of potential theory. These problems occur, for example, with
potential methods of exploration, such as inverse gravimetry, i.e., determining the
density distribution inside a body from potential information; inverse magnetometry,
i.e., determining the magnetization of material from magnetic field data; etc. Inverse
problems, i.e., problems that strive to deduce the “cause from the effect,” are usually
ill-posed in the sense that at least one of the three properties (existence, uniqueness,
stability) is violated. For inverse gravimetry and magnetometry, it will turn out that
even all three properties are violated for the canonical situation of a terrestrial data
specification.
The procedure for the resolution (“approximate solvability”) of ill-posed inverse
problems consists in the construction of a “solution” which is physically acceptable,
adequately close in approximation, and sufficiently stable in numerics. Thus, ill-
posedness forces to distinguish between “solution” and “resolution.” The main
dilemma in modeling ill-posed inverse problems is that the closer the mathematical
model describes the inverse problem, the worse the condition number of the
associated numerical problem (i.e., the more sensitive to computational errors).
Inverse problems urgently require additional information about the desired solution,
adequate compromises, and/or new prospects for their resolution.
By convention, the phrase “regularization of an ill-posed problem” is used to
denote the different approaches to correct one or more reasons for ill-posedness
(non-existence, non-uniqueness, lack of stability). Roughly speaking, regularization
entails the replacement of an ill-posed problem by a system of well-posed problems
that provide promising answers to the ill-posedness.
The strategy for the resolution, i.e., the choice of a proper regularization method,
is often involved in one of the following ideas (cf. Freeden and Nashed (2018a),
Freeden and Nashed (2018d)):
• change to an alternative understanding of a “solution” (i.e., to a “pseudo-
solution”)
• modify the equation to be inverted (e.g., replace a singular integral equation by a
class of regular (“mollifier-”)integral equations that promise a simpler solution),
1.4 Dirac and Newton Mollifiers 15
• change the reference spaces and refine the topologies (metrics) within these ref-
erence spaces (e.g., a transition from L2 -function spaces consisting of “bounded
energy functions” to appropriate subspaces such as Sobolev spaces with func-
tions showing a particular “curvature energy behavior”) to define a different level
of accuracy,
• specify the type of noise occurring in the data (“strong” or “weak” noise (see,
e.g., Eggermont et al. (2015) and the references therein) and track a specific
mathematical/statistical response.
All in all, the different methodological facets of potential theory have changed
considerably in the last decades. New applications in geophysics and geoengi-
neering have led to new aspects in potential theory, to well-posed boundary
value problems in geodesy, but also to ill-posed inverse problems in geophysics,
exploration, and prospection. As a matter of fact, the author of this work is
convinced that inverse gravimetry and magnetometry, for example, require a special
“torture” because they are “too ill-posed” to be solved with a common regularization
method. This opinion has considerable consequences for the regularization approach
conveyed in this book. In fact, it leads us to the “mollifier technique,” that is the
essential idea of the book.
1.4 Dirac and Newton Mollifiers
Mollifier (in the German translation “Weichmacher”) was originally presented by

K.O. Friedrichs in his essay (Friedrichs 1944), which is regarded as a turning point
in the modern theory of partial differential equations. In a somewhat extended
understanding, mollifiers today represent auxiliary functions, e.g., in constructive
approximation, in order to generate sequences of smooth functions, which approx-
imate a non-smooth (usually a singular) function. By a “mollification,” the sharp
features in an “irregular signature” are smoothed, but they remain close to the
original non-smooth signature, which is of tremendous importance.
For our work, more specifically, the following characterization is of significance:
A mollifier is a kernel function that convolved with a particular function

(e.g., the Earth’s internal mass density distribution) yields a filtered function
which is “close” to the ( mass density distribution) function but “smoother.”
In other words, in the classical approximation of a (mass density distribution)
signature, a mollifier is not only one kernel function but a sequence, or usually
a one-parameter (i.e., scale dependent) family of kernels (also known as an
approximate identity), so that the kernels of a mollifier have to tend to the Dirac
kernel.
As a consequence, mollifier kernels become more and more space-localized, and

this makes them extremely attractive for numerical purposes. In addition, filtering
(convolution) with mollifier wavelets constituting the difference of two subsequent

mollifier kernels provides band-pass information which, with increasing scales,
deliver better and better details, e.g., about transitional zones between geological
layers and possible irregularities.
Although mollifiers are of particular significance in modern approximation
theory, they have had no deeper significance in gravimetric exploration so far. The
reason is that we have to determine a contrast function, i.e., the Earth’s mass density
distribution, not from data systems of the density distribution itself, but from data
systems of a potential, i.e., the Earth’s gravitational potential. This situation requires
an inversion process in the framework of a Fredholm integral equation of the first
kind. In other words, we need not only a mollifier sequence for the Dirac kernel
but simultaneously a mollifier sequence for the Newtonian potential kernel (Newton
kernel) in such a way that this mollifier sequence, after inversion, has to lead back
to the mollifier sequence for the Dirac kernel. Therefore, we need a mathematical
mechanism for switching over from mollifiers to the Dirac kernel to mollifiers of
the Newton kernel and vice versa. It turns out that, in gravimetric exploration,
this mechanism is the Poisson differential equation known from classical potential
theory.
It should be mentioned that the original idea of the mollifier method in the general
theory of inverse problems, already found, e.g., in the work published by Engl
et al. (1996), Louis and Maass (1990), is an “alternative solution” in which one
finds that the problem is too “strongly ill-posed” to apply one of the traditional
regularization methods. The heuristic motivation for the “mollification” in these
early contributions is, in particular, the annoyance that high-frequency components
in the solution must be specifically damped by smooth structures in order to obtain
solution statements at all.
The applicability of mollifiers in this work concerned with geoexploration
is more specific: Our gravimetric mollifier approach is interested in associated
sequences of Newton and Dirac wavelet kernels, respectively, which show decreas-
ing space-localized supports with increasing scale for the simultaneous multi-scale
approximation of both gravitational potential and mass density distribution, so that
numerically economic and efficient implementations become applicable. Moreover,
the convolutions with the inverse wavelet kernels simultaneously allow to model
band-pass filtered information of the potential and the density distribution, so that
both signatures admit a certain decorrelation into detail information. The substantial
idea is that, if the wavelet kernels of the gravitational potential are constructed
in close geophysical relevance, the detail information of the density distribution
reflects the structure of the geological layers.
The critical point, however, is the choice of the associated Newton and Dirac
wavelet kernels. In principle, an infinite number of kernel variants can be taken
for purposes of approximation. Nonetheless, this book will find a reasonable
compromise. It will be shown that an advantageous connection of our gravimetric
interest with appropriate tools of constructive approximation is given by the
probably simplest type of a space-localizing Dirac mollifier, namely, the Haar
kernels. As a matter of fact, a mollifier sequence of Haar kernels immediately
1.4 Dirac and Newton Mollifiers 17
leads to a counterpart of a Newton mollifier sequence by forming taylorized

versions of the Newton kernel, so that mollifiers of the fundamental solution of the
(negative) Laplace operator in 3D-Euclidean space indeed reduce to Haar kernels
after inversion.
As a consequence, the simultaneous approach using associated Newton and Dirac
wavelets opens a cornucopia of perspectives, for instance, signature decorrelation,
noise cancellation, data compression, etc.
The disadvantage of the classical Haar kernel, however, is its discontinuity. It
is constant on its support, but it vanishes outside. This often leads to numerical
instabilities, especially in a marginal strip of a bounded exploration area under
consideration. This phenomenon can be avoided, at least to some extent, by, e.g.,
smoothed variants of the Haar kernels.
Altogether, this book methodically claims to penetrate into new areas of

geoexploration by collecting so-called mollifier potential methods.
In the case of inverse gravimetry, the mollifier methods, in fact, lead to the
result that, with an appropriate data density set, we are able to specify the
interfaces (transitional surfaces) of geological strata with increasing scales by
means of wavelet techniques, without intrinsically revealing, for example, the
specific rock type of the respective geological formation. For the geological
approach of the areas between the interfaces, either extrapolating experience
of a geologist based on a priori previous knowledge (e.g., information from
previous drilling activities in neighboring areas, knowledge from previous
mining use, etc.) or a posteriori validation by experiment, i.e., drilling (being
hardly justifiable in terms of cost and excluding any risk) is required.
In summary, this book project provides an insight into the current state of multi-scale
gravimetric research. The main result is that the key technology of geomathematics
in the manifestation of mollifiers is indeed capable of reducing gravimetry to simple
decorrelation models that are accessible for exploration purposes. More than that,
in this way, the book familiarizes a broad audience with the diverse questions and
problems of today’s gravimetry and provides food for thought for successful further
development and adequate practical application of potential methods in exploration.
Finally, it should be remarked that the decorrelation concept of wavelet mollifiers
as presented in this book is a continuation of earlier approaches, which already
include the intuitive idea of regularization through a “mollification” over a surface
(cf. Freeden and Schreiner (2006)) or a volume (cf. Freeden and Blick (2013)).
In fact, following Freeden and Schreiner (2006) and Freeden and Blick (2013),
the (singular) fundamental kernel of the “2D-Beltrami (surface) operator” and the
negative “3D-Laplace (volume) operator,” respectively, are replaced by suitable
mollifier sequences of regular kernels in close physical proximity (see also the
studies in Freeden and Gerhards (2013), Freeden and Nashed (2018c,d), and
Freeden and Nashed (2020)). Decorrelative exploration was numerically tested in
the Ph.D. theses Fehlinger (2009), Wolf (2009), Möhringer (2014), and Blick (2015)
of the Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern and recently by the

CBM-research group, Bexbach, Saarland.
1.5 Exploratory Obligations Involving Gravity
The discussion of the subsystems of the Earth originated and influenced by the
gravity field, and giving information about mass distribution and mass transport
(see Figs. 9, 10, 11, 26) is an eminently important issue. The gravity field is one
of the key components of future investigation. Even better, it can be expected
that the design and development of new sensors such as optical clocks, quantum
gravimeters, and the use of glass fibers open an auspicious gravity measurement
epoch, thereby offering the combined utilization of relativistic geodesy with related
classical measurement techniques in the near future.
Gravimetry, i.e., the determination of the density distribution in a subarea of
the Earth’s interior from data of the gravitational field, is a fundamental field
measurement method of prospection and exploration in addition to seismics and
magnetics. Gravimeters are used to determine spatial changes in gravity, which
according to Newton’s theory are caused by density differences in the subsurface.
Gravimetric investigations use changes in density to determine subterranean

properties. In particular, fault lines can be identified using gravitational (decor-
relation) methods.
Gravimetric research is important in diverse applications, from which we list only a

few examples:
(1) Gravimetry is decisive for geodetic purposes of modeling gravity anomalies,
geoidal undulations, quasigeoidal heights, and deflections of the vertical.
(2) Gravimetry is helpful in different phases of the oil and gas exploration and
production processes and in geothermal research.
(3) Archaeological and geotechnical studies aim at the mapping of subsurface voids
and overburden variations.
Fig. 9 Illustration of the constituents of the gravity intensity at a single location (ESA medialab,
ESA communication production SP-1314)
1.5 Exploratory Obligations Involving Gravity 19
9.8072467 . . .m/s2
10−9 ocean topography, movements of poles
10−8 temporal variations: oceans, hydrology
10−7 tide, atmospheric pressure
10−6 salt dome, sedimentary basins, deposits
10−5 density variations in crust and mantle
10−4 mountains, oceanic ridges, subduction
10−3 flattening and centrifugal acceleration
100 spherical Earth
Fig. 10 Illustration of the coordinates of the gravity acceleration at a single location (cf. ESA
medialab, ESA communication production SP-1314)
(4) Gravimetric campaigns may be applied for groundwater and environmental

studies. They help to map aquifers to provide formations and/or structural
control.
(5) Gravimetric studies give information about tectonically derived changes and
volcanological phenomena.
Today’s particular applications of gravimetry is documented in the following
scheme (Table 1):
Exploration methods as pursued in this book demand a broad spectrum of
geoscientific disciplines: geology, geophysics, geochemistry, Geoengineering, and,
of course, geomathematics. Exploration means the geological identification of cost-
effective drilling regions. The decisive factor is the discovery of geological layers,
especially fault patterns, and the accompanying disturbances and discontinuities in
the interesting area of the deep underground.
volcanism
height systems
mine water
changes
mass variations
ocean water fluctuations
aquifer resources
isostasy
rift valley
Gravity anomalies: Indicators of mass variations and fluctuations
Fig. 11 Gravity is an indicator of any form of mass accumulation and change (see also Freeden
and Bauer (2020))
Table 1 Scientific fields of gravimetric applicability

Solid Earth Oceanography Glaciology Geodesy Climate
Crustal Dynamic Bedrock Levelling, Sea level
density topography topography GNSS changes
Post glacial Heat Flux Height Coastal
rebound transport systems Zones
Exploration Mass Orbit
transport determination
Even at this early stage, however, two major difficulties occurring in gravimetric
exploration should be pointed out:
• The measurement of gravitational intensities in no way implies that the arrange-
ment of masses inside the Earth is unique (see Fig. 12 for a well-known
demonstration).
• According to previous experience, for a successful application of gravimetric
investigations, it is essential that the geological structures to be determined
stand out from their surroundings by clear density contrasts; hence, a common
prerequisite for the successful application of today’s gravimetric investigation
methods is that the geological structures to be detected must show sharp contrasts
in density. In Fig. 13, this is shown exemplarily for a salt dome. Since the density
in the salt dome is distinctly contrasted with the surrounding rock, the gravimetric
signals show a characteristic isoline image of a minimum in the center of the
salt dome. Such structures, but also only such structures, can be characterized
Fig. 12 Problem of
uniqueness: Redistribution of
mass from known
gravitational field intensity
(after Jacobs, Meyer (1992),
modified illustration with
kind permission of Teubner,
Leipzig)
1.5 Exploratory Obligations Involving Gravity 21
Fig. 13 Top: Gravity effect in [μm s−1 ] of the salt dome Werle (Mecklenburg, Germany). Bottom:
Geological vertical profile (after Jacobs, Meyer (1992), modified illustration with kind permission
of Teubner, Leipzig)
and analyzed more precisely with traditional gravimetric exploration methods, so

that suitable conclusions about the salt dome can be drawn from the gravimetric
signals.
The decorrelation methodology presented in this book claims to be able to detect
the boundaries between less distinct geological formations, e.g., areas outside the
salt dome. A wavelet decorrelation, i.e., a multi-scale decomposition of gravitational
signatures by wavelets, is a decisive tool in this respect, so that layer boundaries of
geological formations become visible and thus can be planned.
A particular point for the realization of gravimetry as an important procedure
in exploration is the claim to enable a reduction of the project risk with low
financial expenditure. In fact, to reduce the risk of success (cf. Fig. 14), one is
well advised in exploration to consider more cost-effective potential methods before
carrying out reflection seismic. This book, the numerical results of which are largely
based on the test example of the Saarland (Germany), clearly pursues the goal
of showing that an improvement of the cost/risk ratio is achievable by applying
suitable geomathematical solution methods under the condition of an appropriate
gravimetric data situation. It shows that gravimetric decorrelation provides helpful
100%
High
Risk
Cost
Cumulative Cost
Project Risk
Moderate
Low
Maintenance
Operation
Construction
Start-Up
Exploration
Circulation
Potential
Methods
Planning
Seismic
Drilling
&
Test
Bankability
&
Fig. 14 Geothermal project risks, cumulative investment costs, and financial feasibility (illustra-
tion according to a template in the “Handbuch Tiefe Geothermie,” Bauer et al. (2014a) (see also
the “Technical Report” of the Geothermal Energy Association (2011))
decision support, e.g., to determine suitable natural fault zones and layers at
sufficient depth in regions with anthropogenic characteristics. It can be assumed
that the concepts developed in the test examples from the Saarland can be easily
transferred to other similarly positioned regions, such as the Ruhr area or the Saxon
mining region in Germany. In addition, regions for which hardly any exploration
data are available so far are also interesting for the cost-saving application of these
methods.
Part I
Gravitation and Gravimetry
Chapter 2
Gravitation
The omnipresent gravitational force of our planet Earth attracts us to different

degrees depending on the location (cf. Figs. 9, 10). These minimal fluctuations are
highly interesting for researchers in a variety of scientific disciplines. Knowing the
gravity field as precisely as possible is not only of interest for the geosciences but
also for practical applications in surveying and construction and in navigation and
satellite technology. The illustration (Fig. 15) only provides an overview of the most
important fields of application.
The following considerations about the gravity field can be found in every
textbook of physical geodesy (see, e.g., Heiskanen and Moritz (1967), Groten
Oceanography
Ge
ate
od
m
esy
Cli
Gravity Field
Ge
y
log
oph
cio
ysi
Gla
cs
Exploration
Fig. 15 Gravity field and important areas of application (based on a systematic compilation in
Rummel (1992), see also Freeden (1999) and Freeden and Schreiner (2020))
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 25

W. Freeden, Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry, Geosystems Mathematics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69909-3_2
26 2 Gravitation
(1979), Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz (2005), Torge and Müller (2012), and
Vanicek and Krakiwsky (1986) for an in-depth study).
More specifically, our explanations merely deal with certain topics, which are
necessary for the remaining of this book. They are partly based on a survey article
given by Reigber and Schwintzer (2003).
Gravity (from Latin gravitas) expresses the mutual attraction of masses. It
decreases with increasing distance of the masses but has an unlimited range. Unlike
electrical or magnetic forces, it cannot be shielded. On Earth, gravity causes all
bodies to fall toward “down,” i.e., toward the center of the Earth, unless they are
prevented from doing so by other forces. In the solar system, gravity determines the
orbits of the planets, moons, satellites, and comets, and in the cosmos it determines
the formation of stars and galaxies and their development on a large scale.
Gravitation is often equated with gravity, but this is incorrect from a scientific
point of view. This is because the weight of a body is determined by the locally
prevailing gravity field, which includes not only the gravitational force (see Fig. 16)
but also inertial effects affecting the body (especially through the centrifugal force).
In classical physics, gravity is described by Newton’s law of gravity, i.e., as a
remote force acting instantaneously through empty space. As already mentioned, a
fundamentally different understanding of gravity results from A. Einstein’s general
theory of relativity. Here, gravity does not act on the bodies in the form of a force
but through a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, whereby the orbits of the
bodies, on which no other forces act, correspond to a shortest line (in curved space),
i.e., a geodesic. However, these assumptions (see, e.g., Misner et al. (1973) and the
literature contained therein) will not be pursued further here for our purposes of
exploration.
Fig. 16 Gravitation v(x), direction of the plumb line

centrifugal force ξ(x), gravity
acceleration w(x) at a point x
x
ξ(x)
v(x)
w(x)
mass center
2.1 Gravity and Gravitation 27
2.1 Gravity and Gravitation
Following the standard concepts of physical geodesy, the gravity field of the Earth
is composed of its gravitational field and the centrifugal acceleration in a reference
system rotating with the Earth. The gravity field (or gravity) is a vector field. The
field strength of the gravity field is the gravity intensity (sometimes also briefly
called gravity).
The weight of a test specimen in relation to its mass is also called gravity
acceleration or acceleration due to gravity. With this acceleration, a freely falling
body sets itself in motion.
The gravity w is a vectorial quantity with absolute value (gravity intensity) g =
|w| and direction λ = |w|
w
. The gravity intensity
g(x) = |w(x)| (1)
at the location x is also called location factor to emphasize that the weight of a body
also depends on the location x.
The gravity w(x) is the vector sum of the gravitational component v(x) and the
centrifugal component ξ(x):
w(x) = v(x) + ξ(x). (2)
Since the gravitational force is a conservative force, the acceleration due to gravity
as field strength is the gradient of a potential
w(x) = ∇W (x) (3)
and
v(x) = ∇V (x). (4)
Fig. 17 Illustration of the gravity intensity: constant, i.e., 9.8 ms−2 (left), decreasing to the poles
by about 0.05 ms−2 (mid), real simulation (right)
28 2 Gravitation
x level surfaces x
w(x)
w(x)
sphere geoid
plumb lines
Fig. 18 Level surfaces and plumb lines for a homogeneous ball (left) and an Earth-like body
(right), taken in modified form from Freeden and Gerhards (2013)
Here, W is the gravity potential. It consists of the gravitational potential V and the
centrifugal part Ξ :
W (x) = V (x) + Ξ (x). (5)
In Eq. (5), the first summand on the right side is the gravitational potential, the
second summand is the potential of centrifugal acceleration, whose shape assumes
that the origin for the position vector to the receptor point (the place for which the
potential is calculated) is on the axis of rotation. The centrifugal acceleration ξ(x)
has an effect, decreasing to the poles by about 0.05 ms−2 (see Fig. 17). Tidal forces
are caused by the influence of other celestial bodies (e.g., the moon or the sun).
Gravity Relevant Geometries The direction of the gravitational acceleration is
called the direction of the plumb line.
The direction of plumb lines points approximately to the gravitational center of
the Earth. Deviations are caused (apart from gravity anomalies) by the fact that the
centrifugal acceleration at mid-latitudes is at an oblique angle to the gravitational
acceleration. Plumb lines are the field lines of the gravity field.
Surfaces where the gravity potential W (see Figs. 18, 19) is constant are called
equipotential or level surfaces of the gravity field. They are penetrated by the plumb
lines at right angles. The gravity potential of the Earth is also called the geopotential.
The greater the local gravity acceleration, the smaller the distance between the
equipotential surfaces.
Under the influence of its gravitational field, the Earth takes on a “potato-like
shape” that corresponds approximately to one of the level surfaces. Since Listing
2.2 Newton’s Law and Subsequent Concepts 29
Fig. 19 Geodetically relevant geometries: Earth’s ellipsoid (white), geoid (yellow), actual Earth’s
surface (i.e., topography) (modification of an illustration in AOES Medialab/ESA, see also Ilk et al.
(2004))
(1873), a disciple of C.F. Gauss, the level surface that follows the height of the sea
level is called the geoid (see Figs. 20, 21). The geoid is slightly flattened by the
centrifugal acceleration.
2.2 Newton’s Law and Subsequent Concepts
I. Newton (January 4, 1643 to March 31, 1727) was a mathematician and physicist
(described in his own days as a “natural philosopher”). Newton made discoveries
in mathematics and optics. Newton’s book (1687) entitled “Philosophiae Naturalis
Fig. 20 Geoidal surface over oceans (left) and over the whole Earth (right), modeled by smoothed
Haar wavelets, Geomathematics Group, Kaiserslautern (2008)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
módjában nem tudja mit csináljon s a tizenhat másodperc esetleg
tizenhat hónap alatt lepöndörödik.
Mért csinálják a filmgyárak, amit csinálnak? Gondolom, csak
kapzsiságból. Egyik nem tudta elnézni a másiknak, hogy az
megeresztett egy kilométeres filmet és gyorsan szerkesztett egy
kétkilométereset. És igy tovább. A végtelen unalomig. A közönség, a
derék jó moziközönség, nem kivánta a kilométereket, akárki mondja,
nem igaz, hogy kivánta, mert még ma is, mikor az izlését, a külön
mozi-izlést, félig már meggyilkolták, jobban örül annak, ha a füzfa
szépen tükrözik a tóban, vagy a Prince egy nagyot rug a partnere
háta alá, vagy a Maxi egy sikerült grimaszot vág, minthogyha
egymást öli két szinészhadsereg a filmen.
Ugy látszik, a filmgyárosok között kevés a higgadt, stilusos üzlet-
ember, ellenben annál több a tudatlan aranyásó. Tönkreteszik a
mozit. Bizonyisten kár érte.
MAGYAR FILM
– Tudja-e ön, mi az: klepp?

– Nem tudom.
– Tudja meg hát, hogy ez az, amit a magyar ember a saját
homlokára ad, mikor eszébe jut neki, hogy valamit ő is tud, amit
mások már tudnak. Ilyenkor szokás a másokat nímetnek nevezni.
Népies formában a mondat igy hangzik: Hajazakutyanímet…
Magyarul: ha a dánok tudnak filmeket csinálni, miért ne tudnánk
mink, akik sokkal többen vagyunk s mind a hányan vagyunk,
tehetségtől csöpögünk? A dánok nagyszerü filmeket csinálnak, mi
még nagyszerüebbeket fogunk csinálni, ők meghóditották Európát,
mi meghóditjuk Amerikát és Afrikát, s ha kell, szállitunk filmeket a
sarkcsillagra is. Ha a sarkcsillagon van szerves élet, akkor mozi is
van rajta, mert a mozi szervesen hozzátartozik a szerves élethez,
sőt ha tényleg van istennek kalapja, ahogy ezt Petőfi egyik versében
állitja, akkor e kalapot is magyar filmmel veszszük körül piros-fehér-
zöld pántlika helyett. És azonnal elkezdtünk magyar filmeket
előállitani. A filmen valami ostobaság történik. Ez az alap. Ezt az
alapot mi magyarok is kitünően ki tudjuk állitani. Ha a külföldi film
buta, ihaj, leszünk mi még butábbak. Tyuhaj: lettünk is. Első
lépésünket teljes siker koronázta. Gügyeségeket vetettünk papirra,
hogy onnan a vászonra vettessenek. Ami már nem olyan egyszerü.
Ugy mondják: a filmnek technikája van. Szinészek mikép
játszszanak, diszlet milyen legyen, nap hogyan süssön, gép hova
álljon, fölvétel mennyi ideig tartson, csupa olyan részletkérdés, amit
Nordisk Film nevü néppusztitó csak bizonyosan évek hosszu során
át és roppant munkával tudott megoldani. Nyilván nagyon sok viz
lefolyt a Skagerrakon és a Kattegaton…
– Ezek nem folyóvizek, hanem tengeröblök…
– Ha tengeröblök, akkor is viz van bennük, nem spiritusz és
nagyon sok viz párolgott el belőlük (korrigáljuk igy a mondatot); amig
a Nordisk Film olyan tökéletesen állitotta ki az ő butaságait, hogy
világszerte beszopták őket, mint a cipőzsinór alaku feketecukrot.
Valószinüleg sok filmet el is hajigáltak s még a sikerültebbekből sem
mindegyik került a butitásra váró publikum elé. Ellenben a magyar
film…
– Istennek hála, hogy odaértünk!
– Ezt már nem mondhatnám. A magyar film egyszerre akart
mindent tudni, s egyszerre semmitsem tud. A dráma, amit a magyar
film pörget, csakugyan ostoba, de nem a szerző intenciói miatt,
hanem, mert a film ostobára sikerült, s a rossz filmen keresztül
látom, hogy a téma, amivel meg akartuk lepni a világot, már
hatvanhatszor meg volt mozizva Pathénál, Gaumontnál, Lubinnél,
Edisonnál, mindenütt; s mind a hatvanszor jobban volt megmozizva,
mint a magyar filmen. A magyar filmen még a feliratok is
rosszabbak, mint a külföldieken, s még ezeket a rossz feliratokat
sem lehet elolvasni, mert a magyar filmes nem tudja, hány
másodpercig kell a vászonra vetiteni egy fölirást, ha azt akarjuk,
hogy olvasható legyen. A magyar filmen csak az ötödik percben
ismerem meg az alakokat, noha valamennyien személyes
ismerőseim, de a világitás olyan gyatra, hogy senkit sem sikerül
megismernem, pedig Asta Nilsent, akihez még sohasem volt
személyesen szerencsém, s az ő egész komparszériáját, urakat,
hölgyeket, akiknek még a nevét sem tudom, azonnal megismerem,
mihelyt a világot jelentő lepedőre dugják az orrukat. Mikor a tragikus
magyar filmen az egyik főszereplő meghal, akkor a közönség szivből
kacag egyet, s mikor a másik főszereplő agyonlövi magát, akkor a
közönség szivből kacag kettőt, mert az egész dolog olyan félszegül
buta, olyan bután félszeg, hogy csak nevetni lehet rajta. Igaz viszont,
hogy a kacagtató filmen abszolute nem lehet nevetni, s igy az
ellentétek kiegészitik egymást. Adjuk el tehát hirtelen a hazát és
mondjuk ki, hogy a magyar film rossz, ami nem volna baj, ha nem
hinnők róla, hogy nagyszerü. És ezzel akarunk mi világot hóditani!
mikor bizonyos, hogy Soroksárig nem tud elmenni a filmünk, mert
már Soroksár is tudja, hogy mi a moziban egy jól sikerült butaság.
És a mienk egészen rosszul sikerült. Hogy mit kellene hát
cselekedni? Semmit. Meg kell tanulni a filmcsinálást. Ehhez azonban
elősorban nem szinészek és diszletek kellenek, hanem az a belátás,
hogy még nem tudunk filmet csinálni, s csak akkor tudunk majd, ha
már megtanultuk. Akkor éljen a magyar ipar, addig pedig hagyjon
élni bennünket s engedje meg, hogy hörgő vágygyal vessük
magunkat Asta Nielsen fényből és árnyból jól formált karjaiba.
Sürgősen ajánlom, hogy a magyar film tegye le Botond bárdját, mert
a résen, amit a mozi ércvásznán ütött, egyelőre csak egy
nevendékborju tud kényelmesen kibujni.
MOZGÓ HALOTTAK
… Az este mozi volt, ami itt (fürdőn vagyok, pihenek,

szellőcködöm, semmitse csinálok) külön mulatság számba megy. A
hotel tánctermét alakitják át mozivá. Két oszlop közé lepedőt
feszitenek s azzal szemben egy spanyolfalat állitanak fel, amelyiken
lyuk van. A lyukon át ömlik a sugár, s a filmet kézzel hajtják, ami elég
fáradságos munka lehet, mert vannak drámák, amiknek félóráig is
eltart egy felvonásuk.
Szóval ez vándor-mozi, mert akármilyen fiatal ipar a
kinematográfia, már vannak lecsuszottjai, akik nem épithetnek
tündérpalotát valamelyik város közepére, hanem helyről-helyre
cipelik mindössze egy kofferbe zárva az egész fölszerelésüket. Ha
esik az eső, megélnek a mesterségükből, ha szép idő van, akkor
szihatják a sós tengeri levegőt, mert a kutya se megy be mozi-nézni
a meleg terembe. A vándor-mozinak a filmje is régi lehet, igy
gondoltam már előre, s csakugyan, amint a fény megvillan a
lepedőn, látom, hogy a kinematográfia kezdeteiből valók a felvételek.
A humort még nem Pali és nem Móric és nem Duci bácsi
szolgáltatják, hanem névtelen komikusok, akik, azóta, bizonyára,
visszatértek az igazi szinházba. Több bolondság után egy nagyobb
kép következik. Repülőverseny a cime, az elnök jelenlétében.
Ahogy az elnök bejön, hófehér szakállal, megismerem a kedves,
Fallières bácsit (ejtsd: Falíresz); a kép csakugyan régi, s ahogy
egymásután jönnek a repülőgépek, észreveszem, hogy nagyon
primitivek, még kezdetlegesebbek amaz állapotuknál, amelyben a
budapesti versenyen jelentkeztek. Tehát egészen ó a kép. Á, Blériot!
De még négy szárnya van a monoplánja propellerének, vagyis a kép
abból az időből való, amikor a világhirü még nem volt világhirü, mert
nem röpülte át a csatornát. Tehát a rheimsi repülő-versenyt van
szerencsém láthatni, a legeslegelsőt, amit rendeztek. Máris ugy
érzem, hogy egy darab történetet pörgetnek elibém a vásznon.
Nagyon érdekes. A gépek alacsonyan szállanak, s csak egy kis
fotografáló ügyességgel lehet őket a felhőkkel összefüggésbe hozni.
De aztán még történetibbé válik a látványosság. Egy felirat ezt
mondja: Latham. S egy másik ezt: Curtiss. És jönnek ők, akik már
nem jönnek, mert hiszen halottak, négy-öt, egymásután, akikről
tudom, hogy évekkel utóbb lezuhantak és összetörték magukat
halálosan. Latham, a sasorru, sportsipkával a fején lendül be a gépe
ülésébe. Mosolyog és int felém a kezével, pedig, ha jól emlékszem,
Afrikában bivaly ölte meg. De ő azért vidám, friss és könnyed, nem
is tudja, hogy meghalt, s mikor elvégzi a röpülést, elegánsan ugrik ki
a masinából s mert tapsol a nép, szépen meghajtja magát.
Ugyanigy cselekszenek a többi halottak is, mind jól érzik
magukat, mert sikerült a felszállás, mert az elnök gratulál, s a nők
zsebkendőiket lobogtatják. Ahogy berreg a gép, egyre több halott
röpköd a levegőben. Egy egész temető. Hazajáró lelkek, szelid
kisértetek, akik most a gyerekeket mulattatják. A csontjuk porlad,
mindenfelé, a világ különböző részeiben, de, számomra, még
egyesültek, hogy röpüljenek egy-egy kört, mert szeretik a gyönyörü
levegőt hasitani…
A vándor-mozis még évekig hurcolja körül a világon a testüket,
mert a film erősebb, mint az ember és hosszabb életü. A film tuléli
majd még Blériot-t is, aki e pillanatban zuhan le előttem, aztán
felkötött karral és bekötött fejjel kerül a képre. Különös, hogy a
többinek semmi baja nem történt, csak éppen, hogy holtak egy kicsit,
ez a Blériot ellenben a szemem láttára esik le s mégis él, nemcsak
él, hanem milliomos is.
Na most. Tünődjem el az ember mulandóságán? Minek? Kint
ordit a tenger, az is örök; sóhajtanak a babérfák, ők is
hosszabbéletüek; s az asztal is tul-él, amely mellett ülök. Vajjon, ha
öntudatuk volna s tudnának az örök életükről, hogy’ éreznék
magukat s nem halnának-e bele a halhatatlanságukba?
Közben vége az előadásnak. A mozis már pakolja a halottait,
mert holnap is van egy nap s ő még holnap is élni akar azokból, akik
tegnap éltek. Kicsit általánosabbra tágitva: ugyanez az emberi nem
története. Nehéz belenyugodni.
A JÁTÉK
CSALNAK
– A Ravasz Oszkár esete…

– Hallgatni, befogni a szájat, megnémulni, mert már a hátam
közepén nyől ki szegény Ravasz és még szegényebb esete…
– Miért oly hevesen, ó uram?
– Azért oly hevesen, maga négylábu, mert én tudom azt, amit
maga nem tud és amit Pesten minden olyan ember tud, akinek
valaha kártya volt a kezében, pedig kinek nem volt itt kártya a
kezében, és kinek van egyéb a kezében, mint kártya: én tudom azt,
hogy Pest összes klubjaiban, érti-e, az összesekben, mindenütt és
kivétel nélkül és állandóan csalnak. Csalnak.
– Csalnak?
– Igen. Ne essen le a székről és ne is meressze rám ugy a
szemét, mint két tükörtojást, hanem vegye egyszerüen tudomásul
azt a tényt, hogy Budapest összes játékhelyiségeiben vannak olyan
játékosok, akik ugy élnek, mint a csal a vizben.
– Ne viccelegjen.
– Nem viccelgek. Ez a legkomolyabb igazság, ha ebben a
városban, vagy tágitsunk rajta: ebben az országban vannak komoly
igazságok. Nézze meg a mi klubjainkat, ezeket a ragyogó helyeket,
amik ugy ragyognak, ahogy Móricka a ragyogványt elképzeli. Hamis
bennük a jólétnek minden ize és izéje, hamis a tapéta, a fotel, a
kerevet, csak a hamisjátékos az igazi.
– És mondja, tanár ur, ezt igazán tudja mindenki?
– Tudja. De nem szól. Ezt egyrészről ugy hijják: szánalom a
ligetben, másrészről ugy: ma neked, holnap lehet, hogy nekem.
Vagyis a játékosok egy része azt gondolja, hogy hadd fusson
szegény csaló, mikor ugyis olyan szomoru Pesten kártyázni és
szomorubb csalással keresni meg azt a kis nyavalyás kenyeret, amit
gipszből és poloskából sütnek a pékek, a másik része meg ugy
vélekedik, hogy holnap talán már neki kell csalnia, ha szárazra kerül,
hát mit csináljon skandalumot?!
– Azt hiszi?
– Nem hiszem, hanem meg vagyok győződve róla, hogy
Budapesten nincs olyan ember, akinek volna mit elveszteni kártyán.
S ezenfelül, akinek mégis van, az nem kártyázik. Ellenben
kártyáznak a többiek, akik nyerni akarnak. És veszitenek. És hogy
ne veszitsenek, vagy hogy ne veszitsenek mindig, hát csalnak-
csalogatnak.
– Mit lehetne tenni ellene?
– Semmit. Mert ugyis mindegy. Ennek a városnak züllöttnek kell
lennie, hát züllött. Vagy igy, vagy ugy. Mit csináljanak az emberek,
mikor rendes életük ugyse lehet? Hát kártyáznak, vagy lógnak.
– Mi az: lógnak?
– Ez egy pesti foglalkozás. Az embernek nincs semmi dolga,
undorodik önmagától és a többi felebarátjától, elmegy lógni. Lóg,
mert ha nem lógna, kénytelen volna fölakasztani magát.
– Ezen se lehet segiteni?
– Se; ezen se. Mert itt nagyon tisztelik a közszabadságot. Öreg
Schopenhauer bácsi, ha nem tetszett neki valami, nyugodtan
rendőrség után kiabált. Mi nem teszszük, mert azt hiszszük, hogy ez
denunciáció. Pedig hiába. A klubokat mégis erőszakosan kellene
becsukni, az embereket keményen és zordonan kipofozni belőlük…
– Erős szavak.
– A tényeknek még erősebbeknek kellene lenniök. Ragaszkodom
a pofonhoz és a többi szép régi testi büntetéshez, amit azért mérnék
rá az emberekre, hogy megkiméljem őket a sokkal sulyosabb
börtöntől. És rendesre verném őket, vagy szeretném, ha volna
intelligens közegem, aki fölénynyel és finoman tudná belepofozni
őket a tisztességes életbe.
– És?
– És mikor már husz esztendeig rendben éltek és ez az egész
város ugy város, ahogy lennie kellene, akkor visszaadnám nekik a
szabadságot, az elzüllés jogát, a klub nevü förtelmet, a monoklit, a
pinkát, szóval az egész pocsolyát, amelyből hol ez a röfögés
hallatszik: ‚Tessék elhinni, nincs tovább!‘, hol az a másik, amit
kártyaellenes vezércikknek hivnak s ami az előbbinél butább,
gonoszabb és erkölcstelenebb.
– Maga nem kártyázik?
– Nem.
– Soha?
– Most nem.
– És azelőtt?
– Azelőtt, mielőtt magával beszélni kezdtem, én is kártyáztam, de
most vége.
– A kártyának, mi? Helyes.
– Nem a kártyának, hanem a pénzemnek és esküszöm
magának, hogy addig nem is nyulok kártyához, amig…
–?
– Amig vagy pénzem nem lesz, vagy nem találok valakit, aki
hozomra is játszanék velem.
FINIS
Süppeteg keleti-kényelmü nagyteremben, hol minden kéjben

uszik, ketten beszélgetnek. A Krupi és A Kliner. Bemutaton őket,
ámbár nagyon valószinü, hogy a fővárosban nincs egyetlen ember,
aki ne tudná, mi a krupi és mi a kliner. De hátha van vidéken valahol
csak egy ember, aki nem tudja? Azt az egyet is föl kell világositani.
Ezért bemutatom őket.
A krupi, az a krupié, francia helyesirással – mert vannak régibb
müveltségü olvasók is – croupier, magyarul gereblyefi, az az ember,
akinek mellső végtagjai a fejlődés folyamán egy gereblyével nyultak
meg. Ezzel a gereblyével söpri ő be a bakkasztalról a pénzt. S
nehogy idegen fogalmakkal dobálódzzam, a bakkasztal: négylábu,
zöld posztóval behuzott, ellipszis-alaku asztal, mely körül tizenketten
ülnek és ezernégyszázan állnak. A bakkasztalra teszik rá a pénzt.
Ráteszik; egy ember, akit bankárnak nevezünk s akit alább fogok
definiálni, valamit csinál a kártyával, valamit mond s akkor a krupié a
gereblyével a pénzt behuzza. Ez a bakkjáték, hosszabban: a
bakkara (ejtsd: baccarat). Később még visszatérek rá. A kliner: a
játékos. Illetve olyan ember, aki a játékból él. De azért nem játékos.
Ja igaz; kliner: cleaner, angol szó, a vacuum cleaner származéka,
szivót jelent, pénzszivót, azt az embert, aki a pénzt kiszivja onnan,
ahol van. Hol van? A bankárnál van.
A bankár, hogy rátérjek a meghatározásra, az a férfiu, aki a
bakkasztal egyik közepén ül, de nem az ellipszis fókuszában, hanem
szemben a krupiéval. Mert az ellipszis fókuszában senki sem ül.
Csak néha a tompa kétségbeesés. A bankár ül az asztal közepén,
bizonyos pénzösszeget vesz ki egy dagadt bukszából, azt leteszi a
bakkasztalra, a kártyát keveri, bizonyos jelmondatokat elmond s
várja, hogy a krupi begereblyézze a pénzt.
Mikor a krupi már egy negyedóráig gereblyézett, mikor a bankár
pénze már háromszor, hatszor, szóval – matematikailag kifejezve –
n-szer, vagy x-szer több, mint eredetileg volt, akkor a bankár elegáns
testtartással, sok gőggel és reszkető inakkal föláll helyéről és igy
szól:
– Uraim, a bank elmegy.
Persze nem a Kereskedelmi Bank megy el, vagy az Angol-
Osztrák Bank, mert azok nem mennek el, hanem az a pénzösszeg,
amit a bankár letett az asztalra s amihez a krupi még n-szer annyit
hozzágereblyézett, s amit egyszerüen banknak neveznek, megy el.
Azok, akiknek a pénzét a krupi gereblyézte, a tizenkét ülő és az
ezernégyszáz álló ember, kórusban ezt kiáltják (Elkárhozottak kara,
Faust, II. rész):
– Kosarat a bankárnak!
Hoznak egy érckosarat s az érckosárba a bankár görcsös ujakkal
belemarkolászsza azt a bankó-, arany-, ezüst- és zsetón-készletet,
melyet fentebb együtt banknak neveztünk. Ad vocem: zsetón. Jeton,
francia szó, dobbantyu, a francia jeter igéből, amely egyszersmind a
vizbeveti magát és az elvetemedik igékkel is rokon.
Akinek pénze van és nem tud tőle másként szabadulni, az
zsetónt vásárol a kártyabarlangban s a zsetónnal megkönnyiti a
krupi munkáját. A zsetónt könnyebb gereblyézni, mint a készpénzt,
mert keményebb. Nem papirra, hanem zselatinra van nyomtatva,
tehát mosható. Mert gazdaság-elméletileg a bankjegy is csak
zsetón, kérdés, nem volna-e okosabb, ha a különböző nemzeti
bankok szintén zselatinra nyomtatnák az ötvenes, százas és ezeres
számjegyeket.
De ez nem fontos.
Tény, hogy a zsetónok piros, ultrakék és sárga szinüek. E szinek
semmit sem akarnak szimbolizálni. A piros nem jelenti a reményt, a
kék nem az eget és a végtelenséget, a sárga nem a halált és az
irigységet. A piros egyszerüen öt koronát, a kék tizet, a sárga huszat
jelent. A sárgának még osztriga is a neve, mert biztos, hogy aki a
sárgával játszik, életében sohasem kerül többé abba a helyzetbe,
hogy osztrigát ehessen.
De ez is mellékes.
Vannak fehér zsetónok is. Ötven, száz, ötszáz és ezer korona
értéküek. De, mondom, ez sem tartozik a tárgyra.
A tárgyra az tartozik, hogy a bankár visszavonul. Hová? Egyelőre
nem oda, egyelőre még nem a börtönbe. Az csak későbbi stádium,
amelyet egy paradoxonnal kell megelőznie. S a paradoxon ez: a
bankár mindig nyer és addig nyer, mig végül mindenét elvesziti.
Akkor kiderül, hogy időközben a nevét belügyminiszteri engedélylyel
az idegenhangzásu bankárról a magyaros zamatu sikkasztóra
változtatta s egy gyorsvonat menetsebességével és erejével ütközött
bele a büntetőtörvénykönyvbe.
Ám ott még nem tartunk.
Egyelőre a bankár csak az egyik sarokba vonul, pénzét
megolvasandó. A pénzt kiönti egy asztalra. Valaki e pillanatban igy
szól:
– Majd én.
Ki mondja, hogy ‚majd én‘? A kliner mondta. S már be is nyult a
pénzbe és már olvasni is kezdte. Ahogy a rotációs-gépből minden
századik ujságpéldánynál egy szám, ugy ugrik ki a bankár pénzéből
minden századik koronánál egy korona. Ezzel jelöli a kliner, hogy
száz. Mert valamivel meg kell jelölni ezt. A korona nem a világürbe
ugrik, hanem a kliner zsebébe.
A kliner munkája fárasztó.
Ne csodáld tehát, hogy ő e munkát szuszogva végzi. A
szuszogás a kisebb papir-bankjegyeknek szól, melyek közül egyik-
másik az asztalról a földre fujódik. A kliner sohasem visel hosszu,
keskeny francia cipőt, hanem mindig széles és tetemes angol cipőt
visel, melynek talpával rálép a lefujt bankjegyre.
Betakarja azt.
Ugy hogy annak csücske sem látszik. E bankjegy sorsán nem
kell aggódni, nem marad a földön mindörökké. A bankár távozása
után a kliner fölveszi a földről, megtisztogatja, megpuszikálja a rajta
levő nőalakot és igy szól hozzá:
– Apád-anyád idegyöjjön.
Azonban ne siessük el a dolgot. Megelőzőleg a kliner befejezi a
pénz olvasását, illetve nem gördit több akadályt annak utjába, hogy
a bankár az olvasást befejezze. Megtörténvén ez, a kliner
jobbtenyerét előrenyujtja a bankár felé s igy szól:
– Valamit az olvasóba.
Nem az olvasóterembe akar eljuttatni valamit, hanem a bankárt
szólitja fel arra, hogy pénzt tegyen abba, aki a pénzt megolvasni
segitett. A bankár erre öt koronától fölfelé menő összegeket nyujt át
a klinernek. Ez a klin. Az összeg nem lehet olyan kicsi, hogy a kliner
el ne fogadja, s nem lehet olyan nagy, hogy az elfogadás tényét az
undor és a megvetés arcjátékával ne kisérje. Az arcjáték után a
kliner még ezt is mondja:
– Na és a krupinak?
S ezzel a bankárt egy kötelességére figyelmezteti. Nem ama
kötelességére, melylyel a társadalomnak tartozik, hogy tudniillik birái
elé álljon, vagy a rája mért börtönbüntetést leülje, mert ez mind
későbbi dolog, hanem arra, hogy a gereblyésnek a gereblyézésért
pénzt adjon. Mikor ez is megvan, a kliner egy erősen személyes élü
viccet mond, nem leplezvén, hogy ő tudja, hogy a bankár, aki most
még az izgalomtól nedves, megszáradni végül a fegyházban fog.
Ezekután, hogy a szereplő személyeket kurtán bemutattam,
elkezdhetem voltaképpeni témámat, a beszélgetést, mely egy krupi
és egy kliner közt egy becsukandó pesti kaszinó pompázatos
nagytermében játszódik le. A klubot a rendőrség a jövő héten csukja
be, a tulajdonosra már ezen a héten opciót váltott, vagyis őrizet alá
helyezte. A játékosok nem mernek feljönni, a kárpitos még nem jött
fel, hogy a tulajdonjog-fentartással szállitott keleti kényelmet a
boltjába visszavigye. Ezért süppedhetnek a krupi és a kliner a
püffeteg bőrnyoszolyákba (fotel) s miközben rudnyi havannáikból
olyan göndör füstfelhőket bocsátanak, mint egy-egy zsidógyermek
(ez a göndörségre vonatkozik), lefolytathatják a következő
beszélgetést:
A krupi: Puah, puah, becsukunk.
A kliner: Mbe! Én Kairóba megyek a jottomon.
A krupi: Én Indiába, az autómon. Puah, Puah. Szevász.
ZALÁN, A BARÁTOM
– Halotti beszéd –
Hadd legyek megint rossz ujságiró, hadd nyulok vissza ismét az
elmult hónapok eseményei közé. Bocsássák meg, nem tudok szó
nélkül elmenni az Endrei Zalán sápadt és szőkeszakállas holtteste
mellett, nem tudom csak ugy egyszerüen tudomásul venni, hogy
Zalánt, a barátomat, Zürichben elfogták a rendőrök és táviratoztak
haza Pestre, hogy fogtak egy szőke magyart, mit csináljanak vele;
mire hazulról azt sürgönyözték a zürichieknek, hogy csak küldjék
haza Zalánt, mert itthon ‚eljárás folyik ellene.‘ Nem, nem, ezt nem
lehet csak ugy szimplán elolvasni, mert most már Zalán az
istentudja-hanyadik barátom, akit lefognak és becsuknak s ha ez igy
megy tovább, akkor egyetlenegy barátom sem marad, valamennyit a
börtönben látogathatom csak meg. Mert az utóbbi évek erkölcsi
halottjai mind a barátaim voltak; ne ugy tessék érteni, hogy a
magánéletben, mert magánéletük nem volt nekik, se a jó Zalánnak,
se a kövér Gauzernek, se a sovány Lombos Arturnak. Csak
kártyáztam velük, az Otthon-körben, az irók és a hirlapirók körében.
Kártyáztam, hazárdot, nagy pénzben, vagy aránylag nagy
pénzben. Én csak a pénzemet veszitettem el annak idején, ami nem
is olyan nagy tragédia, hiszen mi pénzem volt nekem? De ők utóbb a
becsületüket is elveszitették, s erre nem szabad azt mondani, hogy
nem volt nekik, mert igenis volt, mielőtt az Otthon-körben, ahol én is
iró és hirlapiró vagyok, le nem ültek a kártyaasztal mellé. Igenis volt
becsületük, mert a jó Zalán például az én időmben minden olyan
kölcsönpénzt megfizetett, amit játékos-kollégák adtak neki. Most is
biztosan nem a játékosok pénzével ment el Zürichbe, hanem
valamiféle vállalkozókéval. S ha volna az Otthon-körben, irók és
hirlapirók közt, valaki, akinek Zalán még tartozik tiz koronájával,
nyugodt lehet, Zalán, mihelyt kiszabadul – mert hiszen a halálnak ez
a fajtája nem tart örökké – meg fogja fizetni a tiz koronát, meg, még
akkor is, ha száz.
Én itt most nyugodtan irhatom ki, hogy az Otthon-körbeli játékot
tartom erkölcsi halottaim halál-okának, nyugodtan, mert tagja vagyok
a körnek és nem fizetek tagsági dijat, amit a magam dicséretére kell
fölemlitenem. Az Otthon-körben, bizony, játszanak hazárdot, sőt
bakkot játszanak, de ez nem följelentés, nehogy félreértse valaki.
Mert ott szabályosan szabályos a játék s annak, hogy az Otthon-
körben ne játsszanak bakkot, annak igazán legföljebb erkölcsi
akadályai lehetnének. Csak erkölcsiek és én nem mondom, hogy
ilyen erkölcsi akadályok, bolondságok, megszivlelendők. Nem
vagyok én erkölcsprédikátor. Játszszanak csak tovább – és fognak is
játszani – mert becsuknivaló ember már olyan igen kevés van s aki
van még, azt ugyis egész biztosan becsukják. Az ember név szerint
meg tudná nevezni szegényeket. Mert boldogult játékos-karriérem
alatt én – csakugy mint a többi társam – megtanultam annak a
fölismerését, hogy ki játszik a maga pénzével, ki játssza el a másét.
Ezt már négy-öt méterről diagnosztizálni lehet. Az arcára van irva az
áldozatnak. Az Otthon-körben legalább. Mert ott mi vagyunk együtt,
irók és hirlapirók, civil elemekkel. A sikkasztót mindig a civil-elemek
közt kell keresni, mert az iró és hirlapiró – haj, be szomoru! – sohase
kerülhet abban a helyzetbe, hogy más ember pénzét játssza el. Az
iró és hirlapiró mindig csak azt a pénzt játssza el, amit vagy
keservesen megszolgált már, vagy még keservesebben meg fog
szolgálni, mert előleg volt. Másféle pénze az irónak és hirlapirónak
nincsen. Ennek következtében az iró és hirlapiró nyugodtan, vagy
legalább is aránylagos nyugodtsággal, az utolsó koronáját is
eljátszhatja, el is játssza, isten segitségével, mert legföljebb csak az
a kinos kérdés merül föl lelkében, hogy hogyan fog vacsorázni és
honnan szerez majd öt korona kölcsönt, amivel holnap ujra
játszhatik. Ha közben nem nyer, akkor biztos, hogy nagyobb tőkéje,
amit elveszithet, csak elseje után lesz néki. Minden baj, ami érheti,
az, hogy eladósodik, már amennyire egy iró és hirlapiró, a mai
hitelviszonyok és a tőke szükkeblüsége mellett, eladósodhatik. Ezért
az irók és hirlapirók bakkjátéka az Otthon-körben a legvidámabb
dolgok közé tartozott, hiszen csak anyagi veszedelmek lebegtek a
zöld asztal fölött, erkölcsiek nem.
Más klubokban a bakk vidámsága, ha van ilyen, csak macabre, a
halál-tánc vidámsága. Az Otthon-körben, az irók és hirlapirók közt,
nem volt az. S ez volt a legvészesebb. Itt kedvelték meg a játékot,
ezt a másokra halálos játékot, az én elhunyt barátaim, a Lombos, a
Gauzer, a Zalán. Élvezet volt nekik játszani ott, ahol honunk
legjobbjai tréfálkoztak az asztal körül. De mikor ők elveszitették az
utolsó koronájukat, velük baj volt, mert ők a kis kölcsönön tul, még
ott álltak annak a lehetősége előtt is, hogy a mások pénzéhez
nyuljanak. Nyultak is. És, nem bánom, belemegyek abba, hogy a
mások pénzét már nem az Otthon irók és hirlapirók körében
játszották el – ámbár ez nem igaz – tény, hogy játékosokká,
kártyaszagot lélegző s minden más levegőben magukat rosszul érző
játékosokká ott lettek, az Otthon-körben, az irók és hirlapirók
körében, velem és a többiekkel kártyázgatván.
Zalán is… a derék jó Zalán; mily sárga volt az arca, mily sárga a
szakálla, mily üveges a szeme és mily hegyes a ceruzája. Mert
reggelig lehetne beszélni arról, hogy Zalán milyen érdekes és furcsa
ember volt és kedves és jó, és a halálra mily régen kiszemelt. De
nincs hely… abba kell hagynom. Meghalt az én barátom, isten
nyugosztalja.
DÓPING
– Csöndes beszélgetés. –
(A beszélgetést két előkelő ló folytatja egy gyönyörü istállónak
két egymás mellett fekvő boxában. E lovak már megették az esti
abrakporciójukat, megitták a maguk vödröcske vizét s miközben a
lovászgyerek, aki távolról sem olyan intelligens, mint ők, horkol és
szerelemről álmodik, e két lovak megbeszélik a napi-eseményeket.
Hogy én megértem, amit beszélnek? E pillanatban nem jut eszembe,
hogy hijják a magyar népmeséknek azt a füvét, amelynek az a
csudatékony ereje van, hogy aki a birtokába jutott: érti állatok és
növények szavát. Tehát nem hazudom azt, hogy e fü nálam van.
Hanem csak annyit mondok, hogy napközben annyi szamár
beszédet hallok és megértem őket, mért ne érteném meg este, amit
okos lovak csevegnek. Ne tessék haragudni, hogy a banális Első Ló
és Második Ló vinyettáju megszólitást alkalmazom, de az olvasónak
nem szabad elfelejtenie egy percig sem, hogy lovak beszélnek
egymással. Mert a lovak esetleg egy-egy egyszerübb ostobaságot is
fognak mondani és akkor azt lehetne hinni, hogy mégis csak
emberek intézik egymáshoz a szót.)
Első ló: Most rájöttek a dópingra és most nagy kavarodás lesz
miatta. A trénerünket elkergetik, a lovászfiuknak kihuzzák a fülét s
egy állatorvos fog molesztálni bennünket állandó jelenlétével, egy
állatorvos, aki inkább állat, mint orvos s akit már régen fel kellett
volna ruházni a doktori cimmel, mert éppugy nem ért a
mesterségéhez, mint az emberek orvosai.
Második ló: Hagyjuk az orvos-problémát, amit majd más
alkalommal intézhetünk el, maradjunk meg a dópingnál és mondja
meg ön nékem, hogy valóban megbotránkozik-e rajta?
Első ló: Meg. A lapok is azt irják, hogy botrány, hogy felháboritó
skandalum, hogy…
Második ló: Ne folytassa. Nem kell mindent készpénznek venni,
amit a lapok irnak, ámbár, amit irnak, valóban majdnem mindig
készpénz. De nem az olvasónak, hanem a kiadónak. Kérdem én
öntől, mint józan és belátásos lótól: mi a dóping?
Első ló: A dóping nem egyéb, mint a bennünk lovakban lévő
képességek mesterséges felfokozása.
Második ló: Az. Csakugyan az. Vajjon az a képesség, amit
mesterségesen felfokoztak: nem a mi képességünk-e? Ki futja azt,
amit én futok, ha izgatószereket kaptam? A szomszéd? Nem.
Hanem én. Tud-e ön ugy futni, ha izgatószereket kap, mint én? Nem
tud. Vagy jobban tud. Egyformán futni semmi esetre sem fogunk, ha
pontosan ugyanannyi izgatószert adnak is be önnek, mint nekem.
Ha pezsgőt iszom, én egészen másforma ló vagyok, mint ön. Az
emberek sem egyformák, mikor isznak. Az egyik röpülni szeretne
ilyenkor, a másik egyetemi tanár akarna lenni, a harmadik
népdalokat dalol, a negyedikből harapófogóval sem lehetne egyetlen
szót kihuzni. De ezt csak ugy mellékesen jegyeztem meg. A lényeg
a következő: Vannak képességek, amiket csak az izgatószerek
kényszeritenek ki az emberekből. Ön ismeri nyilván Poe Edgar
poézisét? Nagyon sok ló ismeri. Ime, abban nincs egyetlen sor sem,
amit irójuk józan fővel vetett volna papirra. De a nevezett költő
értékének megitélésénél ez a szempont sohasem játszott szerepet.
Mert a versek szépek. Ki mondaná, hogy nem Poe irta őket, hanem
az izgatószerek? És aki mondaná, helyesen beszélne-e? Nem kell-e
örvendenie az emberiségnek, amikor olyan kincsekhez jut, amiknek
alkohol, ópium, morfium vagy hasis a bányászaik? Amit az ember
álmodik alkoholtól, ópiumtól és morfiumtól: az alkohol, az ópium, a
morfium álmodta-e? Továbbá minden ember ugyanazt álmodja-e
ugyanattól az izgató ágenstől?
Első ló: Ágens az ügynök, mi?
Második ló: Ez esetben nem ügynök.
Első ló: Egyszer ügynök, egyszer nem?
Második ló: Különben, ha akarja: ügynök. Az az ügynök, aki
elmegy az agyhoz és megköt vele egy olyan üzletet, amit e
személyes érintkezés nélkül megkötni lehetetlen lett volna.
Rábeszéli az agyat valamely olyan termelésre, ami különben esze
ágában vagy esze tekervényében sem lett volna. És ebből olyan
nagyszerü dolgok támadnak, amiket az emberiség még egyetlen
esetben sem utasitott vissza. Honoré Balsac feketekávéja, Edgar
Poe szilvóriuma, Oscar Wilde morfinja: csupa dóping. Hol jelentettek
be óvást ellenük?
Első ló: Igazságnak látszik.
Második ló: Nemcsak látszik, hanem az is. Már most vannak
emberek, akiknek nincs szükségük izgatószerekre ahhoz, hogy
alkossanak. Nagyon örvendek. De vannak olyanok is, akik az
izgatószerek nélkül megmozdulni sem tudnak. De tessék várni.
Megkapják a dópingot s akkor repül az elméjük. Ohó! Ne gondolja,
hogy mindegyiké! A szegény riporterkuli magába-spriccelheti Arábia
minden füszerét, felöntheti egész Epernay városát, összes
gyárhelyiségeivel és pincéivel együtt, fantáziája mégse lesz, csak
hazudni fog, két méterrel a tenger szine fölött. S valamely
generálisból akkor sem lesz Moltke, ha lelegel egy egész kert zöld
mákot, amely tudvalevőleg ópiumtartalmu. És vannak hires magyar
politikusok, akikbe az egyesült európai orvostudomány sem tudná
beleizgatni, hogy minden mondatban alanyt is, állitmányt is
mondjanak. Ön tudja a francia közmondást: Ou il n’y a rien, le roi
perd son royaume. Ez magyarul is megvan, noha nem ilyen
érdekesen. Ahol nincs, ott ne keress. A dóping nem olt bele
képességeket senkibe, csak megmutatja őket, ha vannak. Mit
mondjak önnek: a mikroszkóp a természettudomány dópingja, a
távcső a csillagászaté. Amikor kitalálták őket, voltak is, akik csalást
emlegettek. És dóping a gőz, amely hatvan kilométerrel viszi az
embert, és a benzin, amely százhuszszal rántja tova ma, holnap
talán kétszázzal.
Első ló: Tehát mit gondol ön?
Második ló: Én a következőket gondolom. Az, hogy mi futunk,
fölösleges. De csak ugy fölösleges, ahogy fölösleges regényt irni,
szinpadon szindarabokat játszani, ebédközben ötleteket mondani.
Mindezeket az emberek mégis gyakorolják, mert hozzátartozik az
embervoltukhoz. Nos, mi futunk, mert mi lovak vagyunk, azt
mondják, hogyha megyés-püspökök volnánk, akkor nem futnánk. Ha
futunk, akkor fussunk minél sebesebben.
Első ló: Vagyis?
Második ló: Nagyon egyszerü. Tessék minden lovat dópolni.
Lesznek, akik nem birják ki; ezek dóping nélkül tudnak kitünően futni
és lesznek, akik a dópinggal ragyogó eredményeket futnak bele a
történet évlapjaiba.
Első ló: De kedves jó uram, mi lesz a fogadásokkal?
Második ló: Ezt ne emlitse, mert dühbe ugrom. Ki mondta az
embereknek, hogy fogadjanak? Ki áll oda a költő mellé, mikor a tollat
kezébe veszi, hogy fogadjon: hosszu novellát ir-e, vagy rövidet,
bárgyu történetet, vagy ostobát, vagy esetleg társadalmi regényt,
amitől az isten mentsen meg bennünket. És aztán ön azt hiszi, hogy
amikor nem dópolnak bennünket, akkor mi ugy futunk, ahogy
tudunk, ahogy a lábunk tehetségéből telik. Tudja ön, mi a zsoké
csizmája? Tudja ön, mit suttog a bokor, ha megrezzenti a szellő és
mit suttog az owner a trénernek, a tréner a zsokénak, mikor a
mázsálónál harangoznak? Tudja ön, mit izent Kossuth Lajos és
tudja-e, hogy mit izen a bukméker, ha egy-egy ló tul van terhelve
nála? Mindezt ön nem tudja, tehát semmit sem tud. A dópinggal a ló
csalja meg a publikumot, de hányszor csalják meg a lovat? A
szügyem elfacsarodik, ha rágondolok, hányszor lehettem volna első,
egy deci spriccer és egy deka morfin nélkül, amikor jó utolsónak
kellett lennem. És akkor olvasnom kellett, amit a sporttudósitók
összeirtak rólam. Pedig keserves az!
Első ló: Miért, miért?
Második ló: Mert én ló vagyok és megtanultam olvasni, de azok
ugy lovak, hogy még irni sem tudtak megtanulni.
KÖZGAZDASÁG
APOKALIPSZIS
– Gazdasági életünk…
– Ugyan, hagyjon békén gazdasági életünkkel. Csak nem
gondolja, hogy az, hogy mindennap meghal tizenhárom cég, az
gazdasági élet? Ha ez csakugyan gazdasági élet, akkor kiváncsi
vagyok a gazdasági halálra. A bécsi hitelezők védegylete, azt
hiszem, igy hijják, átalakult pomp-fünéberré, amely nem foglalkozik
egyébbel, csak magyar kereskedők ravatalozásával. A börzén
minden délelőtt ekzekutálnak s a pénzemberek csodálkozva néznek
egymásra. Azon csodálkozik az egyik, hogy a másik él még, de a
másik még jobban csodálkozik rajt, hogy az egyik is él. Ha valaki az
utcán nagyon siet, meg se kérdezze tőle, hogy hova, hova, mert
biztos, hogy csődbe megy az illető. Á, megszüntek azok a szép idők,
mikor minden ember pénz után szaladgált, a hitelezőit kapacitálta, a
váltóit prolongálta, szóval küzdött a létért.
Budapesten Darwin hagyatékának egyik felét megütötte a guta.
Mit, létért való küzdelem? Ez nincs. Most, ha lejár a váltó, ha kong a
határidő, az emberek szépen lehajtják a fejüket és mennek a gilotin
alá. Emlékszik maga a francia forradalomnak azokra a képeire,
amiken kurta kis szekerek vitték a szép hosszunyaku mágnásokat
Samson mester plein-air mühelye felé? Ha emlékszik, vegye
tudomásul, hogy ez játszódik le minden reggel városunkban. Csak
éppen az emberek nem tudnak róla, vagy nem akarják tudomásul
venni. Itt a rémuralom, de nem veszszük észre, mert a rémurakat

Ebook Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry Basics Ideas Concepts and Examples First Edition Willi Freeden Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry Basics Ideas Concepts and Examples First Edition Willi Freeden Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decorrelative Mollifier Gravimetry

Basics Ideas Concepts and Examples

Basics Design Ideas Bert Bielefeld (Editor)

Handbook of Water Resources Management Discourses

Ideology Studies New Advances and Interpretations 1st

Basics of 3D Printing First Edition Josef Prusa

Shallow Water Hydraulics Oscar Castro Orgaz Willi H

Problems And Solutions In Quantum Computing And Quantum

Management of Prader-Willi Syndrome 4th Edition Merlin

Evolutionary genetics concepts analysis and practice

Editorial Advisory Board

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13389

ISSN 2510-1544 ISSN 2510-1552 (electronic)

in recognition of numerous fruitful

In the year 2005, the then Minister of Economics of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hans-

The Ministry of Economics of Rhineland-Palatinate subsequently granted start-

Freeden, Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern). The main focus

scale analysis, geology, geophysics, and geoengineering are of essential importance.

Trippstadt, Germany Willi Freeden

• (Chapter 1) The introductory remarks are concerned with geomathematically

reflected framework. Chapters 14 and 15 deal with decorrelative procedures in

Content Surface Volume

Part I Gravitation and Gravimetry

Part II Potential Theory

5.6 Haar Wavelet-Based Density Decorrelation from

Part III Surface Decorrelation

Part IV Inverse Potential Theory

Part V Volume Decorrelation

11.5 Mollifier Spline Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

Part VI Decorrelative Potential Methods

Part VII Outlook

Part VIII Appendix

Willi Freeden Studied Mathematics, Geography,

An essential objective of mathematics is to create settings and concepts to better

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

1.1 Cycle of Measurement and Modeling

Geomathematics (cf. Freeden (2009), Freeden et al. (2019)) is devoted to the

observation (= measurement) modeling (= solution) on

distance, potential theory,

retransfer (interpretation, validation)

1.2 Potential Methods: Historical Stages

ca. 1600 G. Galilei (1564–1642): Laws of falling objects,

This incomplete list, essentially related to the history of geoscientific exploration

1.3 Potential Methods: Geomathematical Aspects

In the second edition of the “Handbook of Geomathematics” 2015, T. Sonar starts

Geomathematics and Its Early Flowerings According to the surviving testi-

There may also be articulated a difference between “pure mathematics,” which

1.4 Dirac and Newton Mollifiers

Mollifier (in the German translation “Weichmacher”) was originally presented by

A mollifier is a kernel function that convolved with a particular function

As a consequence, mollifier kernels become more and more space-localized, and

(convolution) with mollifier wavelets constituting the difference of two subsequent

leads to a counterpart of a Newton mollifier sequence by forming taylorized

Altogether, this book methodically claims to penetrate into new areas of

of the Geomathematics Group, University of Kaiserslautern and recently by the

1.5 Exploratory Obligations Involving Gravity

Gravimetric investigations use changes in density to determine subterranean

Gravimetric research is important in diverse applications, from which we list only a

(4) Gravimetric campaigns may be applied for groundwater and environmental

Gravity anomalies: Indicators of mass variations and fluctuations

Table 1 Scientific fields of gravimetric applicability

and analyzed more precisely with traditional gravimetric exploration methods, so

The omnipresent gravitational force of our planet Earth attracts us to different