The knowledge of the gravitational potential coefficients J 2 and J 4 of a hydrostatic Earth model is necessary to deal with non-hydrostatic properties of our planet. They are indeed fundamental parameters when modelling the 3-D density structure or the rotational behaviour of our planet. The most widely used values computed by Nakiboglu need to be updated for two reasons. First, we have noted a mistake in one of his formulae. Secondly, the value of the inertia ratio I /M R 2 chosen at the time of PREM is not any more the best estimate. Both corrections slightly but significantly reduce the hydrostatic J 2 value: the dynamical flattening of the Earth is even further from hydrostaticity than previously thought. The difference between the polar and equatorial radii appears to be 113 1 m (instead of 98 m) larger than the hydrostatic value. Moreover, uncertainties upon the hydrostatic parameters are estimated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chambat et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: