> To the extent that I understand the point you are > aiming for, this statement conflates two issues: > > 1) that the long term secular deceleration is only > perceptible as a baseline trend hidden beneath > large amplitude, short period, effects, and > > 2) that leap seconds aren't the result of new slowing > (or speeding up), they are the result of cumulative > clock corrections required due to previous slowing. > > I agree with both, but just because we're bleeding > ...
Careful not to confuse rate with acceleration and propagate a common misconception that leap seconds are due to an acceleration/deceleration effect (as in "leap seconds are due to the earth slowing down"). In fact, leap seconds are simply due to the earth being slow. How it got to be "slow" and whether it is "slowing" are another issue. There are valid scenarios where the earth could be speeding up and yet we would continue to have leap seconds -- because the earth is still slow (compared to the SI second). Rate is not the same as acceleration; leap seconds are directly due to a rate mismatch, and only indirectly due to deceleration. /tvb
