Tony Finch <fa...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote:
> > You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely > > irregular within the capabilities of our scheme of measurement, > > calculation, and observation. > There is LOTS of evidence that the earth's rotation is irregular. VLBI, > laser ranging of the moon, etc. This was known long before the atomic > clock was invented, and it is why the definition of the second was changed > from one based on earth rotation to one based on Newcomb's ephemerides, > before the change to an atomic second. What you mean is that it is subject to periodicities and forces which you do not understand, and that within your limited perception, this ignorance is taken as "irregularity". Just because the system encompasses rules and properties beyond your understanding and observation does not mean that it is magic. It is impossible for the earth's rotation to be irregular, just as it is impossible for the orbit around the sun to be irreglar, or the orbit of the solar system within the galaxy, or the galaxy within the universe, or the universe within the multiverse, to be irregular. The irregularity is due to inability to comprehend the rather simple set of rules governing the motion, or failures of observation. Once upon a time (not too long ago) the orbit of Pluto was thought to be "irregular". It was not. There was another body right where it would be expected to be found affecting the orbit of Pluto. All that was required to "discover" it was someone who applied logical thought processes rather than magical thought processes to the observed data. The earth's rotation and orbit is perfectly regular. Your error is one of assumption and a failure to admit that your knowledge is imperfect. ** "your" is the general y'all, not you in particular ** --- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org
