On Wed 2021-01-06T10:36:10-0800 Tom Van Baak hath writ:
> Does anyone know who started it? Is there a way to track it down?
I am pretty sure that it started when some reporter meandered over to
timeanddate.com and then started writing a followup.
They have had a running dashboard showing just how
tvb wrote:
> "Atomic clock scientists suggest shortening minute to 59 seconds"
>
> This is so bad it's funny. A newspaper headline that's inaccurate by
> a factor of, just, 100 million.
>
> By the way, a number of news web sites have been carrying "earth is
> speeding up" and "50 years" stories
Uhm...
While it would take hundreds of years for the difference to become obvious
> to most people, *modern satellite communication and navigation systems
> rely on time being consistent with the conventional positions of the Sun,
> Moon and stars*
... what?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:04 AM Bob
> The only reference to shortening the minute to 59 seconds is in the
> headline in the New York Post story. The headline writer appears to
> have made up this claim without any regard for journalistic norms of
> truth. I do not usually read the New York Post so I do not know if
> this is the
On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 10:36 -0800, Tom Van Baak wrote:
> "Atomic clock scientists suggest shortening minute to 59 seconds"
>
> This is so bad it's funny. [1] A newspaper headline that's inaccurate
> by
> a factor of, just, 100 million.
>
> Why? If time had 59 minutes per hour instead of 60 the
"Atomic clock scientists suggest shortening minute to 59 seconds"
This is so bad it's funny. [1] A newspaper headline that's inaccurate by
a factor of, just, 100 million.
Why? If time had 59 minutes per hour instead of 60 the clock rate would
be off by 0.983 And if we had a leap second
