Well there is a 9 second gain in 8 years, then a 2 second gain over 12, going into 13 years. That is a pretty huge irregularity. If only earth's rotation is causing 'irregularity', then I would safely say that we have gained more than 1.7 seconds since 1972.
If I counted to 10 slightly faster than you, does that mean that you're slowing down your count?
So what exactly are you trying to demonstrate here?
Absolutely not.
The point is, if you were in perfect time, and I was in perfect time, even though our timing would differ, there would be a perfectly consistent difference. That is what i kept comparing to the Leap Year. You have one every four years, period. You do not have one after 3 years, then after 5 years, then 3 years in a row... no, like clockwork, one every four years.
It it was just a timing difference, it would be perfectly predictable.
Basically, it's both the Earth slowing down and us counting too fast that leads to leap seconds. Does that make more sense?
Yup, I 100% agree with you.
So you understand that the Earth is not slowing down as fast as you originally claimed, and therefore the argument that the Earth would have been spinning too fast 4 billion years ago is wrong, yes?
If that's the case then I think we've made a first for this forum.
Kent is not a Ph.D. Kent is a liar. Kent is a fraud.I presented the subject of Dr. Kent Hovind's point, then I gave the counter argument, all in 1 post.
You have just officially misunderstood it, and just proved my first post to be true.
Kent is not a Ph.D. Kent is a liar. Kent is a fraud.
I would urge you to reconsider using Kent as a source for anything scientific in the future.
Which speaks volumes about your character and ethics.Dr. Kent Hovind, thank you very much!
I understand that we lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
Since the only inconsistent variable is earth's slowing rotation, and here we have record of a 7 second disparity, the earth may not be slowing at 1 second every 18 months, but is DEFINITELY slowing must faster than all other suggested time frames.
You have just officially misunderstood it, and just proved my first post to be true.
Why? What is your mathematics that supports this view?
You realise that even a tiny change in the deceleration of the Earth's rotation would make huge changes to how many leap seconds we need right?
And you appear to have ignored everything I've said, because you're still arguing something we just agreed was wrong.
Which speaks volumes about your character and ethics.
We both agree it is the slowing rotation of the earth that is causing the inconsistency. The evidence shows: We lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
I don't understand why that's even an issue. You've read the Wikipedia page on the Leap Second, and everything you need to understand why that happened is in there.We both agree it is the slowing rotation of the earth that is causing the inconsistency. The evidence shows: We lost 9 seconds over a 8 years period and only lost 2 in a 11-12 year period.
We agree on this.
We don't agree that the world is slowing down faster than current suggested time-frame; you have yet to demonstrate why this is true. That is the mathematics I requested.
and in 1999 the rotation rate of the Earth increased, so fewer leap seconds have been needed recently.
As I have said, and Wiki says, earths rotation is the only inconsistent value. So one of 2 things are true.
A - The variable between the clocks are not 0.6 seconds, but much less, and the earth is slowing much quicker than presented.
Not remotely, you just appear to have forgotten some basic elements of mathematics. At some point, you're going to have to realise that the leap second says pretty much nothing about how fast the Earth is decelerating. On the other hand, the actual measurements to work out how fast the Earth is decelerating come up with the figures you're disputing. The leap second is not an alternative argument, it's an alternative subject.What is known is earth's rotation debunks the time of the gaps fallacy.
The variable changes. It averages out to 0.6 seconds a year.
No, that's just sloppy English. The rotation rate didn't increase by 0.42 seconds per year, it increased so that our measurement of a standard year and the solar year differed by about that much.It didn't 'just' increase...
It increased 0.42 seconds/year for over a decade now, if you go that route.
We lose the seconds, the Earth does not. Our timing system runs fast relative to the real rotation of the Earth, so we adjust it occassionally.For people who believes the earth only gain a second over thousands of years, you seem to not grasp we just lost 4 full seconds over the past 10 years...