Why would it be unfortunate for a day length to vary in a planet; other than that Java API developers need to...
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Java Docs:
Unfortunately, as the Earth rotates the length of the day varies. In
addition, over time the average length of the day is getting longer as
the Earth slows.
I am building a new planet and I was wondering exactly this, should the day lengths be fixed or should they vary as my planet rotates?
I do not care about the developers in my planet, are there any reasons to say Unfortunately
before the sentence as the .. rotates the length of the day varies.
? (I have not decided the name of my planet yet, hence the ..
.
orbital-mechanics time day-night
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Java Docs:
Unfortunately, as the Earth rotates the length of the day varies. In
addition, over time the average length of the day is getting longer as
the Earth slows.
I am building a new planet and I was wondering exactly this, should the day lengths be fixed or should they vary as my planet rotates?
I do not care about the developers in my planet, are there any reasons to say Unfortunately
before the sentence as the .. rotates the length of the day varies.
? (I have not decided the name of my planet yet, hence the ..
.
orbital-mechanics time day-night
New contributor
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Java Docs:
Unfortunately, as the Earth rotates the length of the day varies. In
addition, over time the average length of the day is getting longer as
the Earth slows.
I am building a new planet and I was wondering exactly this, should the day lengths be fixed or should they vary as my planet rotates?
I do not care about the developers in my planet, are there any reasons to say Unfortunately
before the sentence as the .. rotates the length of the day varies.
? (I have not decided the name of my planet yet, hence the ..
.
orbital-mechanics time day-night
New contributor
Quoting from the Java Docs:
Unfortunately, as the Earth rotates the length of the day varies. In
addition, over time the average length of the day is getting longer as
the Earth slows.
I am building a new planet and I was wondering exactly this, should the day lengths be fixed or should they vary as my planet rotates?
I do not care about the developers in my planet, are there any reasons to say Unfortunately
before the sentence as the .. rotates the length of the day varies.
? (I have not decided the name of my planet yet, hence the ..
.
orbital-mechanics time day-night
orbital-mechanics time day-night
New contributor
New contributor
edited 35 mins ago
kingledion
72k24243421
72k24243421
New contributor
asked 2 hours ago
Koray Tugay
1163
1163
New contributor
New contributor
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Actually, I'd argue the opposite; it would be unfortunate in the long term (in geological scales) for life if the length of a day wasn't lengthening.
The primary reason why the length of the day is increasing is because of Tidal Friction, which is caused by the moon. The moon is also getting gradually further away from the earth, and will one day leave Earth's orbit. That's not anticipated to happen before the earth becomes uninhabitable due to the sun increasing in intensity and size, but if it was, it would be a very bad thing for life on earth.
For one thing, the orbit of the moon generates tides and other changes which (aside from seasonal factors) create diversity in the ecosystem that certain animals take advantage of, or at least work to the cycles of. Also, it's thought that the Earth would wobble more without the moon holding it in place, so to speak. The earth already wobbles a little on its axis, causing the Sahara to transition between food basket and desert every few tens of thousands of years, but without the moon it's thought that the earth could eventually drift into a 3 dimensional rotation, creating all sorts of havoc on the surface to different biomes.
In short, the moon does a lot to stabilise the earth while introducing cycles that occur more frequently than seasons. It does that however at a price; tidal friction.
So, it's arguable that most planets with an environment stable enough to form intelligent life, life that can determine its relative fortune according to the environment, probably have a moon. That moon (in turn) is gently robbing the planet of angular momentum, assuming a large body of water. In such a case, intelligent life everywhere is probably experiencing longer and longer days.
I'd argue the best solution is a change in the Java Docs; Unfortunately should be changed to Fortunately.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It really bugs them
What you've probably misunderstood is what the term "Java developer" actually denotes. Java developers are a small mammal similar to civet cats in Indonesia both in physical characteristics and how they are used by humans. They remove bugs from and consume carefully managed Java beans, passing out the undigested remainder into the soil to become source-trees, which is how their common appellation is derived.
As a species Java developers are creatures of habit that are extremely easily disturbed, highly sensitive to changes in their (runtime) environment and typically exhibit signs of OCD. They are so dependent on routine that merely adding or subtracting milliseconds to daytime(and by logical extension, working hours) is enough to cause a marked decline in morale and actual output. This is why in captivity you'll often see them living in production frameworks where their view is carefully modeled and controlled.
Adding a second every 1.5 years or so puts their feeble circulatory systems and nearly nonexistent tolerance under immense stress and is predicted to cause a disastrous decline in their population. This is why it is quietly labelled as "unfortunate" in reference material written by the people who handle Java developers
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is unfortunate, because we don't get to stare at a giant moon all day
If the planet had a moon, and it had a fixed day length, that would mean that it is already tidally locked to its moon. Our moon is tidally locked to Earth, but the reverse is not true. If Earth were also tidally locked to the moon, then day length would no longer change, and one side of the Earth would always be able to see the moon.
Furthermore, in order for two objects to tidally lock each other before the sun turns into a red giant and expands to consume them, they need to be sort of equal in size. That is why Pluto and Charon are locked to each other, but Earth and the moon are not. So in addition to seeing a moon in the sky all day, you would see a HUGE moon in the sky all day. That would be awesome!
Unfortunately, the other side of the Earth would not see the moon at all. Not everyone gets to be a winner.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The earth change in day's length is so small we don't have to care about it, except in real time network systems. Since 1972 (46 years ago) we had 27 seconds of change. Almost one every two years. Any pre internet society would not notice it. So, if you are not a developer...
To make this a issue you need to accelerate the pacing a lot. Say... 10 seconds a year. In 6 years the day would get a minute long, and 360 years would increase it one hour. This would trigger big climate changes and be a major concern.
But to justify this change you would need some radical cosmic event, like the planet capture a errant comet as a new moon. And that would cause some other concerns, like extreme tides too.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Actually, I'd argue the opposite; it would be unfortunate in the long term (in geological scales) for life if the length of a day wasn't lengthening.
The primary reason why the length of the day is increasing is because of Tidal Friction, which is caused by the moon. The moon is also getting gradually further away from the earth, and will one day leave Earth's orbit. That's not anticipated to happen before the earth becomes uninhabitable due to the sun increasing in intensity and size, but if it was, it would be a very bad thing for life on earth.
For one thing, the orbit of the moon generates tides and other changes which (aside from seasonal factors) create diversity in the ecosystem that certain animals take advantage of, or at least work to the cycles of. Also, it's thought that the Earth would wobble more without the moon holding it in place, so to speak. The earth already wobbles a little on its axis, causing the Sahara to transition between food basket and desert every few tens of thousands of years, but without the moon it's thought that the earth could eventually drift into a 3 dimensional rotation, creating all sorts of havoc on the surface to different biomes.
In short, the moon does a lot to stabilise the earth while introducing cycles that occur more frequently than seasons. It does that however at a price; tidal friction.
So, it's arguable that most planets with an environment stable enough to form intelligent life, life that can determine its relative fortune according to the environment, probably have a moon. That moon (in turn) is gently robbing the planet of angular momentum, assuming a large body of water. In such a case, intelligent life everywhere is probably experiencing longer and longer days.
I'd argue the best solution is a change in the Java Docs; Unfortunately should be changed to Fortunately.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Actually, I'd argue the opposite; it would be unfortunate in the long term (in geological scales) for life if the length of a day wasn't lengthening.
The primary reason why the length of the day is increasing is because of Tidal Friction, which is caused by the moon. The moon is also getting gradually further away from the earth, and will one day leave Earth's orbit. That's not anticipated to happen before the earth becomes uninhabitable due to the sun increasing in intensity and size, but if it was, it would be a very bad thing for life on earth.
For one thing, the orbit of the moon generates tides and other changes which (aside from seasonal factors) create diversity in the ecosystem that certain animals take advantage of, or at least work to the cycles of. Also, it's thought that the Earth would wobble more without the moon holding it in place, so to speak. The earth already wobbles a little on its axis, causing the Sahara to transition between food basket and desert every few tens of thousands of years, but without the moon it's thought that the earth could eventually drift into a 3 dimensional rotation, creating all sorts of havoc on the surface to different biomes.
In short, the moon does a lot to stabilise the earth while introducing cycles that occur more frequently than seasons. It does that however at a price; tidal friction.
So, it's arguable that most planets with an environment stable enough to form intelligent life, life that can determine its relative fortune according to the environment, probably have a moon. That moon (in turn) is gently robbing the planet of angular momentum, assuming a large body of water. In such a case, intelligent life everywhere is probably experiencing longer and longer days.
I'd argue the best solution is a change in the Java Docs; Unfortunately should be changed to Fortunately.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Actually, I'd argue the opposite; it would be unfortunate in the long term (in geological scales) for life if the length of a day wasn't lengthening.
The primary reason why the length of the day is increasing is because of Tidal Friction, which is caused by the moon. The moon is also getting gradually further away from the earth, and will one day leave Earth's orbit. That's not anticipated to happen before the earth becomes uninhabitable due to the sun increasing in intensity and size, but if it was, it would be a very bad thing for life on earth.
For one thing, the orbit of the moon generates tides and other changes which (aside from seasonal factors) create diversity in the ecosystem that certain animals take advantage of, or at least work to the cycles of. Also, it's thought that the Earth would wobble more without the moon holding it in place, so to speak. The earth already wobbles a little on its axis, causing the Sahara to transition between food basket and desert every few tens of thousands of years, but without the moon it's thought that the earth could eventually drift into a 3 dimensional rotation, creating all sorts of havoc on the surface to different biomes.
In short, the moon does a lot to stabilise the earth while introducing cycles that occur more frequently than seasons. It does that however at a price; tidal friction.
So, it's arguable that most planets with an environment stable enough to form intelligent life, life that can determine its relative fortune according to the environment, probably have a moon. That moon (in turn) is gently robbing the planet of angular momentum, assuming a large body of water. In such a case, intelligent life everywhere is probably experiencing longer and longer days.
I'd argue the best solution is a change in the Java Docs; Unfortunately should be changed to Fortunately.
Actually, I'd argue the opposite; it would be unfortunate in the long term (in geological scales) for life if the length of a day wasn't lengthening.
The primary reason why the length of the day is increasing is because of Tidal Friction, which is caused by the moon. The moon is also getting gradually further away from the earth, and will one day leave Earth's orbit. That's not anticipated to happen before the earth becomes uninhabitable due to the sun increasing in intensity and size, but if it was, it would be a very bad thing for life on earth.
For one thing, the orbit of the moon generates tides and other changes which (aside from seasonal factors) create diversity in the ecosystem that certain animals take advantage of, or at least work to the cycles of. Also, it's thought that the Earth would wobble more without the moon holding it in place, so to speak. The earth already wobbles a little on its axis, causing the Sahara to transition between food basket and desert every few tens of thousands of years, but without the moon it's thought that the earth could eventually drift into a 3 dimensional rotation, creating all sorts of havoc on the surface to different biomes.
In short, the moon does a lot to stabilise the earth while introducing cycles that occur more frequently than seasons. It does that however at a price; tidal friction.
So, it's arguable that most planets with an environment stable enough to form intelligent life, life that can determine its relative fortune according to the environment, probably have a moon. That moon (in turn) is gently robbing the planet of angular momentum, assuming a large body of water. In such a case, intelligent life everywhere is probably experiencing longer and longer days.
I'd argue the best solution is a change in the Java Docs; Unfortunately should be changed to Fortunately.
answered 1 hour ago
Tim B II
23.5k651101
23.5k651101
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It really bugs them
What you've probably misunderstood is what the term "Java developer" actually denotes. Java developers are a small mammal similar to civet cats in Indonesia both in physical characteristics and how they are used by humans. They remove bugs from and consume carefully managed Java beans, passing out the undigested remainder into the soil to become source-trees, which is how their common appellation is derived.
As a species Java developers are creatures of habit that are extremely easily disturbed, highly sensitive to changes in their (runtime) environment and typically exhibit signs of OCD. They are so dependent on routine that merely adding or subtracting milliseconds to daytime(and by logical extension, working hours) is enough to cause a marked decline in morale and actual output. This is why in captivity you'll often see them living in production frameworks where their view is carefully modeled and controlled.
Adding a second every 1.5 years or so puts their feeble circulatory systems and nearly nonexistent tolerance under immense stress and is predicted to cause a disastrous decline in their population. This is why it is quietly labelled as "unfortunate" in reference material written by the people who handle Java developers
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It really bugs them
What you've probably misunderstood is what the term "Java developer" actually denotes. Java developers are a small mammal similar to civet cats in Indonesia both in physical characteristics and how they are used by humans. They remove bugs from and consume carefully managed Java beans, passing out the undigested remainder into the soil to become source-trees, which is how their common appellation is derived.
As a species Java developers are creatures of habit that are extremely easily disturbed, highly sensitive to changes in their (runtime) environment and typically exhibit signs of OCD. They are so dependent on routine that merely adding or subtracting milliseconds to daytime(and by logical extension, working hours) is enough to cause a marked decline in morale and actual output. This is why in captivity you'll often see them living in production frameworks where their view is carefully modeled and controlled.
Adding a second every 1.5 years or so puts their feeble circulatory systems and nearly nonexistent tolerance under immense stress and is predicted to cause a disastrous decline in their population. This is why it is quietly labelled as "unfortunate" in reference material written by the people who handle Java developers
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It really bugs them
What you've probably misunderstood is what the term "Java developer" actually denotes. Java developers are a small mammal similar to civet cats in Indonesia both in physical characteristics and how they are used by humans. They remove bugs from and consume carefully managed Java beans, passing out the undigested remainder into the soil to become source-trees, which is how their common appellation is derived.
As a species Java developers are creatures of habit that are extremely easily disturbed, highly sensitive to changes in their (runtime) environment and typically exhibit signs of OCD. They are so dependent on routine that merely adding or subtracting milliseconds to daytime(and by logical extension, working hours) is enough to cause a marked decline in morale and actual output. This is why in captivity you'll often see them living in production frameworks where their view is carefully modeled and controlled.
Adding a second every 1.5 years or so puts their feeble circulatory systems and nearly nonexistent tolerance under immense stress and is predicted to cause a disastrous decline in their population. This is why it is quietly labelled as "unfortunate" in reference material written by the people who handle Java developers
It really bugs them
What you've probably misunderstood is what the term "Java developer" actually denotes. Java developers are a small mammal similar to civet cats in Indonesia both in physical characteristics and how they are used by humans. They remove bugs from and consume carefully managed Java beans, passing out the undigested remainder into the soil to become source-trees, which is how their common appellation is derived.
As a species Java developers are creatures of habit that are extremely easily disturbed, highly sensitive to changes in their (runtime) environment and typically exhibit signs of OCD. They are so dependent on routine that merely adding or subtracting milliseconds to daytime(and by logical extension, working hours) is enough to cause a marked decline in morale and actual output. This is why in captivity you'll often see them living in production frameworks where their view is carefully modeled and controlled.
Adding a second every 1.5 years or so puts their feeble circulatory systems and nearly nonexistent tolerance under immense stress and is predicted to cause a disastrous decline in their population. This is why it is quietly labelled as "unfortunate" in reference material written by the people who handle Java developers
edited 26 mins ago
answered 36 mins ago
nullpointer
3,5821728
3,5821728
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is unfortunate, because we don't get to stare at a giant moon all day
If the planet had a moon, and it had a fixed day length, that would mean that it is already tidally locked to its moon. Our moon is tidally locked to Earth, but the reverse is not true. If Earth were also tidally locked to the moon, then day length would no longer change, and one side of the Earth would always be able to see the moon.
Furthermore, in order for two objects to tidally lock each other before the sun turns into a red giant and expands to consume them, they need to be sort of equal in size. That is why Pluto and Charon are locked to each other, but Earth and the moon are not. So in addition to seeing a moon in the sky all day, you would see a HUGE moon in the sky all day. That would be awesome!
Unfortunately, the other side of the Earth would not see the moon at all. Not everyone gets to be a winner.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is unfortunate, because we don't get to stare at a giant moon all day
If the planet had a moon, and it had a fixed day length, that would mean that it is already tidally locked to its moon. Our moon is tidally locked to Earth, but the reverse is not true. If Earth were also tidally locked to the moon, then day length would no longer change, and one side of the Earth would always be able to see the moon.
Furthermore, in order for two objects to tidally lock each other before the sun turns into a red giant and expands to consume them, they need to be sort of equal in size. That is why Pluto and Charon are locked to each other, but Earth and the moon are not. So in addition to seeing a moon in the sky all day, you would see a HUGE moon in the sky all day. That would be awesome!
Unfortunately, the other side of the Earth would not see the moon at all. Not everyone gets to be a winner.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It is unfortunate, because we don't get to stare at a giant moon all day
If the planet had a moon, and it had a fixed day length, that would mean that it is already tidally locked to its moon. Our moon is tidally locked to Earth, but the reverse is not true. If Earth were also tidally locked to the moon, then day length would no longer change, and one side of the Earth would always be able to see the moon.
Furthermore, in order for two objects to tidally lock each other before the sun turns into a red giant and expands to consume them, they need to be sort of equal in size. That is why Pluto and Charon are locked to each other, but Earth and the moon are not. So in addition to seeing a moon in the sky all day, you would see a HUGE moon in the sky all day. That would be awesome!
Unfortunately, the other side of the Earth would not see the moon at all. Not everyone gets to be a winner.
It is unfortunate, because we don't get to stare at a giant moon all day
If the planet had a moon, and it had a fixed day length, that would mean that it is already tidally locked to its moon. Our moon is tidally locked to Earth, but the reverse is not true. If Earth were also tidally locked to the moon, then day length would no longer change, and one side of the Earth would always be able to see the moon.
Furthermore, in order for two objects to tidally lock each other before the sun turns into a red giant and expands to consume them, they need to be sort of equal in size. That is why Pluto and Charon are locked to each other, but Earth and the moon are not. So in addition to seeing a moon in the sky all day, you would see a HUGE moon in the sky all day. That would be awesome!
Unfortunately, the other side of the Earth would not see the moon at all. Not everyone gets to be a winner.
answered 31 mins ago
kingledion
72k24243421
72k24243421
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The earth change in day's length is so small we don't have to care about it, except in real time network systems. Since 1972 (46 years ago) we had 27 seconds of change. Almost one every two years. Any pre internet society would not notice it. So, if you are not a developer...
To make this a issue you need to accelerate the pacing a lot. Say... 10 seconds a year. In 6 years the day would get a minute long, and 360 years would increase it one hour. This would trigger big climate changes and be a major concern.
But to justify this change you would need some radical cosmic event, like the planet capture a errant comet as a new moon. And that would cause some other concerns, like extreme tides too.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The earth change in day's length is so small we don't have to care about it, except in real time network systems. Since 1972 (46 years ago) we had 27 seconds of change. Almost one every two years. Any pre internet society would not notice it. So, if you are not a developer...
To make this a issue you need to accelerate the pacing a lot. Say... 10 seconds a year. In 6 years the day would get a minute long, and 360 years would increase it one hour. This would trigger big climate changes and be a major concern.
But to justify this change you would need some radical cosmic event, like the planet capture a errant comet as a new moon. And that would cause some other concerns, like extreme tides too.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The earth change in day's length is so small we don't have to care about it, except in real time network systems. Since 1972 (46 years ago) we had 27 seconds of change. Almost one every two years. Any pre internet society would not notice it. So, if you are not a developer...
To make this a issue you need to accelerate the pacing a lot. Say... 10 seconds a year. In 6 years the day would get a minute long, and 360 years would increase it one hour. This would trigger big climate changes and be a major concern.
But to justify this change you would need some radical cosmic event, like the planet capture a errant comet as a new moon. And that would cause some other concerns, like extreme tides too.
The earth change in day's length is so small we don't have to care about it, except in real time network systems. Since 1972 (46 years ago) we had 27 seconds of change. Almost one every two years. Any pre internet society would not notice it. So, if you are not a developer...
To make this a issue you need to accelerate the pacing a lot. Say... 10 seconds a year. In 6 years the day would get a minute long, and 360 years would increase it one hour. This would trigger big climate changes and be a major concern.
But to justify this change you would need some radical cosmic event, like the planet capture a errant comet as a new moon. And that would cause some other concerns, like extreme tides too.
answered 1 hour ago
Cochise
33615
33615
add a comment |
add a comment |
Koray Tugay is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Koray Tugay is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Koray Tugay is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Koray Tugay is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131533%2fwhy-would-it-be-unfortunate-for-a-day-length-to-vary-in-a-planet-other-than-tha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The length of a solar day (the time between two noons) varies during the year according with the equation of time. Moreover, one second of time was defined so that the average solar day computed for January 1st 1900 was exactly 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. Unfortunately, the tidal forces of the Moon slow the rotation down, so that now we need to add one extra second every 18 months or so in order to keep civil time aligned with actual midnight and noon. The point of "unfortunately" is to convey the idea that nothing is uniform or forever.
– AlexP
1 hour ago
@AlexP I still do not understand, why is not being uniform unfortunate? I understand earthquakes are unfortunate for example, it costs lives. But why is it unfortunate to add an extra second every 18 months? On the contrary, it is cool, keeps you fresh and alive!
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago