Reply by the authors to F. J. Esparza and E. Gómez‐Treviño
Despite the time that has passed since the original short discussion, I think some useful points can be made regarding the note by Esparza and Gómez‐Treviño. First, the authors are quite correct to point out that (3) of their note is not a rotation invariant definition of phase as was claimed in the original discussion. This slip most likely carried into later texts unchallenged. The fact is, however, that (3) is rotation invariant for a 2‐D earth. It was in this context that the change was made to the definition in Vozoff (1971).
1984 ◽
Vol 59
(2)
◽
pp. 465-467
◽
Keyword(s):
Lexicographica - International Annual for Lexicography / Internationales Jahrbuch für Lexikographie
◽
2014 ◽
Vol 30
(1)
◽
pp. 291-320
2015 ◽
Vol 23
(03)
◽
pp. 367-377
1997 ◽
Vol 56
(3)
◽
pp. 429-437
◽