On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured
Don't forget pulsars in this. Some of them rival atomic clocks and
they are a long way away and still line up nicely with our hydrogen
masers synchronized to caesium standards.
Jim Palfreyman
On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com wrote:
At 10:46 AM 6/11/2010, iov...@inwind.it
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or,
probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large
On 06/12/2010 03:36 PM, jimlux wrote:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or,
probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 03:36 PM, jimlux wrote:
bunch o' stuff
While it would be fun to know, the practical impact of such a change is
very, very small, to the level of being ignored. Considering of a major
event actually consisting of many hundreds of earth quakes spread over
[Chile quake]
Graph of position (3 meters!):
http://ivsopar.obspm.fr/earth/tigo
3 meters in one direction and 60 in another.
Just to make sure we are all on the right track, the scale on the graph is
cm, so the motion was 300 cm West and 60 cm South.
I may have confused things by
On 06/12/2010 08:33 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
[Chile quake]
Graph of position (3 meters!):
http://ivsopar.obspm.fr/earth/tigo
3 meters in one direction and 60 in another.
I meant to write 60 cm naturally.
Just to make sure we are all on the right track, the scale on the graph is
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
In message 815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51, iov...@inwind.it
writes:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
quasars.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp
At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
In message 815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51,
iov...@inwind.it
writes:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the
In message 20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net, Mike S writes:
At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
Obviously, any measurement of earths
Antonio, where do I get some of the stuff your on?
Cheers,
Steve
On 11 June 2010 22:01, iov...@inwind.it iov...@inwind.it wrote:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
iov...@inwind.it
writes:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
quasars.
I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
quasars as
This whole time thing is based upon some arbitrary standard anyway. As soon
as the first leap-second was added and short while after the second was
defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition
between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. Trying to keep some
In message 20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net, Mike S
writes:
At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
Obviously, any measurement of earths
Sorry Antonio, please ignore me. I've just realised that it is my clock that
is speeding up :)
Cheers,
Steve
PS. note to self, always include a smiley with every posting, just in case.
On 11 June 2010 23:36, iov...@inwind.it iov...@inwind.it wrote:
Steve,
would you please clarify your
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed,
Good point! matter its properties should be affected by the decreasing
gravity of the expanding universe.
Is our time measurement also minutely changing with it?
At 11-06-10, you wrote:
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed,
t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
Hi Antonio,
snip...
The result of these comparisons show the earth day has
more drift and is less stable than the earth year.
This is
iov...@inwind.it said:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to explain why
atomic
t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to
solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation
Hi Antonio:
It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
called seeing.
Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
measurement of the Earth's rotation to the accuracy needed to
bro...@pacific.net wrote:
Hi Antonio:
It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
called seeing.
Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
measurement of the Earth's
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Whether the answer is (a) or (b) doesn't change the fact that
the earth day is a poor clock compared with other clocks now
available. Besides tidal friction effects which might be hard to
imagine, or lunar effects which you already know about, note
that every time it rains
Hal Murray wrote:
iov...@inwind.it said:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is
more acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be
used to solve the matter, can anybody out there point me please to
any article on actual measurements of the variation rate of the
Wikipedia says 2 ms/100 years and that it was noticed by
Halley in 1695 and confirmed by Dunthorne in 1749. I
assume they were using the Earth's orbit around the sun
as their reference clock.
how exactly would that work? Are they measuring the number of days in a
year? How would one
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
Is there a good URL on this?
At 10:46 AM 6/11/2010, iov...@inwind.it wrote...
(Speculative hint: We accept that the universe is expanding. Might
this affect
the fine structure of matter, including cesium atoms? Is there any
adverse
proof? What is easier to think? a) the expansion of the universe
doesn't affect
at all the
Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
I don't think
31 matches
Mail list logo
