Earth's Slowing Spin

Raven. Shut up. Just ignore the troll. We've already given adequate replies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adequate for what, your daily post count total?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*COUGH*sixthousandpostsIAC*COUGH*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey Jeremy, why would you calibrate a clock to be far less precise than it's capable of being?

 

Are you saying it's not precise (in your opinion) because it doesn't match the precise rotation of the sun? If so, what sheer nonsense! What you don't even seem to know yet is that the rotation isn't exactly stable and they also had to REMOVE seconds as well as add them.

Besides, it was once thought that a calendar month matched the phase of the moon - but of course it really doesn't.

I'm not at all sure what you hope to gain by pushing this foolishness but it's VERY obvious that you haven't bothered to read the links that were given to you. Just lazy or what????????? And you've yet to provide ANYTHING to back up the numbers you gave. Why is that??? Can't find any??????

 

It's merely logic.

Why would you calibrate a clock to be 10,000 times less precise than its capability, Read-Only?

 

Who says it is???????????????

And where's your response to the rest I asked you??

 

The fellas say it was calibrated to be .002 seconds off, go figure.

 

IAC is a parrot.

 

You're a ferret.

 

And that ladies and gentlemen, is that.

 

No...this is logic.

In case you need it explained again, I'll assume you're an idiot: If the earth's rotation slowed by 1 second every 2 years, and the length of the day stayed the same, you'd have to gradually add more and more seconds to compensate for the time that you didn't add to the year's length.Are you really that stupid?

 

Why would you use only 1/100th of the logic circuits in your brain that God gave you?

 

Glad you agree Oniw.

 

huh?

 

1967 -- The 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures defines the second on the basis of vibrations of the cesium atom; the world’s timekeeping system no longer has an astronomical basis.

A leap second is a second added to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) to make it agree with astronomical time to within 0.9 second. UTC is an atomic time scale, based on the performance of atomic clocks. Astronomical time is based on the rate of rotation of the earth. Since atomic clocks are more stable than the rate at which the earth rotates, leap seconds are needed to keep the two time scales in agreement.

The first leap second was added on June 30, 1972. Since then, they have occurred at an average rate of less than one per year. Although it is possible to have a negative leap second (a second removed from UTC), so far, all leap seconds have been positive (an extra second has been added to UTC). Based on what we know about the earth's rotation, it seems unlikely that we will ever have a negative leap second.

http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/leaps.htm

 

"Since atomic clocks are more stable than the rate at which the Earth rotates .... leap seconds are needed ..... leap seconds added at an average rate of less than one (about .6) per year."

Thanks Spidergoat.

 

I think IACs' brain is slowing down.

 

But of course.

 

IAC, if you had a watch that was 5 minutes slow, how many minutes would you have to set it forward each day to keep it on time?