> Dear Dialists... > Regarding the assertion by David Higgon that the Earth makes a better clock > than the frequency of an arbitrarily chosen atom. Unfortunately Earth's > rotation is slowing down, so the atom is preferable, though admittedly less > romantic. Presumably, if the human timekeepers endure long enough on the > Earth there would be a noticeable difference in the day of the equinoxes and > solstices. > (the Earth's revolution IS NOT slowing down, which makes the atomic > measurement necessary...please correct me if this is wrong) > > Troy Heck > Ortonville, Michigan
The "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac," mentions alternatives to atomic time under study that may offer improvements. (I don't have the book handy and cannot recall what they are. I will try to post a follow-up on Monday.) I believe that atomic timing technology is about fifty years old now... Clock technology marches on: First shadow measurement of diurnal rotation, then clepsydras, then spring/escapement mechanisms, then pendulum clocks (which were accurate enough to lead to the notion of the "mean sun" and the equation of time), then atomic clocks, then ???. Jim ------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric | Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | ------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. -- Edmund Burke
