Then I suggest you use one.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:You're assuming that days are slowing at a linear rate. That is not a valid assumption.
So would the day length during the age of the dinosaurs have been 21 hours?
"The dinosaurs were around 100 million years ago, which at the current rate [of day lengthening] adds up to 2000 seconds, which is less than an hour."
Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:No, what this means is that the rotation rate of Earth is not a perfect 24 hours.
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:Using what form? Linear, exponential, cubic, logarithmic?
PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!No, they work on exponential decay.
I'm not assuming anything. It's a scientific principles that everything dealing in time is calculated on a linear,No, it isn't.
The speed of light,
Carbon Dating
Radiometric dating
Your scientist are saying it, not mine!!!No it is you saying it.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.
In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.
You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.
Evolution is pure bullshit and below I will prove it mathematically:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds more to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
You could have at least read the page you linked that said that the length of the day becomes about 1.7ms every century. Which, assuming it is stable, means that 300.000.000 years ago, one solar day would be shorter than it is now by 1.41 hours approximately. Lol. I'm assuming so many leap seconds had to be added because a day wasn't exactly 86400 seconds when the counting started either, so leap seconds would still have to be added even if the rotation of the earth wasn't slowing down. Besides, the Wiki page states that since 1971 the rotation has sped up a bit. Try to look a bit more carefully into the sources you're quoting next time.
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
It's not speculation, the wiki page says that 86400 seconds was close to the length of a day in like 1750. So a day is inherently a few milliseconds longer than 86400 seconds. Do you even read your sources?
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.
In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.
You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.
If days are slowing at an exponential rate, it's not "worse", it's much, much "better". It would mean that the rate with which the rotation slowed down in the past used to be much lower.
But all that is pretty irrelevant. I explained where you go wrong in the other thread.
The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.
You posted that you're an ME so you should know such numeric models already exist and work. Asking someone to provide you with what you should already know is no trivial task is just plain silly.The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.
tidal forces???
OK smart ass, show me your mathematical model to prove it!!!!
Oh, you have to believe me, because the scientist said it, it must be true, just like the Russians did it!!!
The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.
tidal forces???
OK smart ass, show me your mathematical model to prove it!!!!
Oh, you have to believe me, because the scientist said it, it must be true, just like the Russians did it!!!
Since you asked it soooo nicely
http://jkas.kas.org/journals/2012v45n2/v45n2p049_naa.pdf
Since you asked it soooo nicely
http://jkas.kas.org/journals/2012v45n2/v45n2p049_naa.pdf
That reference cannot be used as proof of anything.
It is totally based on the results first published by J. Laskar, namely this one:
https://www.imcce.fr/fr/presentation/equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2004/La_2004_prep.pdf
Those types of calculations are useless without specifying first THE SET OF INITIAL VALUES of the orbital equations of motion.
All of the necessary details here, including an analysis of Laskar's papers:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581
For example, a difference in the initial position of 1 cm grows to ∼1 AU (= 1.496 x 10^11 m) after 90–150 million years.
Right. They do that because a day is not a perfect 24 hours. Same reason we do leap year. It has nothing to do with the earth speeding up or slowing down.It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.
Physics is not hard, it's child's play
OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.
Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.
I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!
If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...
How about this for the reason for the tides,
A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee which talk about a magnetic moutain that pulled the nails out of two ship that sank and I believe 4 ships got lost in the giant whirpool in the center of the North Poll.
This letter was written for the King, and the author was the Einstein of the time for making maps. I don't believe that if Eistein would have written a letter to the President of the United States, that he would lie.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1150242?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Also below is a video of a Russian airplane over the North Poll. I don't know if the video it is true or not, but let me throw it out their for you to decide.
But the letter is real
Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!
If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...
Close but wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-in-the-jurassic-era-an-earth-day-may-have-been-only-23-hours-long/2013/09/23/a75c548a-f2dc-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.a8bf388065b1
Right. They do that because a day is not a perfect 24 hours. Same reason we do leap year. It has nothing to do with the earth speeding up or slowing down.It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.
Physics is not hard, it's child's play
OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.
Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.
I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
And like him, you have no evidence it is. You just need it to be fake out of necessity.Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!
If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...
Close but wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-in-the-jurassic-era-an-earth-day-may-have-been-only-23-hours-long/2013/09/23/a75c548a-f2dc-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.a8bf388065b1
Int he word of our President, FAKE NEWS
You are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).Right. They do that because a day is not a perfect 24 hours. Same reason we do leap year. It has nothing to do with the earth speeding up or slowing down.It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.
Physics is not hard, it's child's play
OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.
Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.
I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
let me explain it to to y o u v e r y s l o w.
We we are going slower today from yesterday, that means that yesterday was going faster... do the math
You are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).
Do you really think scientists are this stupid?
That such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?
You are extremely ignorant.
QuoteYou are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).
In the last 44 years, the scientist have added 27 lead seconds and subtracted 0 leap second. Their is a pattern in the leap second.
If the scientist have added a leap second in the last 44 years, that is from the time that they began talking about time correction and leap seconds, please post citation of the year.QuoteDo you really think scientists are this stupid?
No Liars, when it comes to defend the heliocentric fair-tailQuoteThat such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?
When did it become important to have a an accurate time system?
Oh yes in the computer age.
When did the computer age start?
in the 60'sQuoteYou are extremely ignorant.
So tell me, how does it feel that an ignorant man was able to debunk your heliocentric fair-tail?
But if I am wrong, please post citation where it states that from 1972 and afterwards they subtracted a leap year!!!
How about this for the reason for the tides,??? Why are you trying to derail your own thread? You seem to do that a lot.
A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee which talk about a magnetic moutain that pulled the nails out of two ship that sank and I believe 4 ships got lost in the giant whirpool in the center of the North Poll.
This letter was written for the King, and the author was the Einstein of the time for making maps. I don't believe that if Eistein would have written a letter to the President of the United States, that he would lie.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1150242?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Also below is a video of a Russian airplane over the North Poll. I don't know if the video it is true or not, but let me throw it out their for you to decide.
But the letter is real
QuoteYou are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).
In the last 44 years, the scientist have added 27 lead seconds and subtracted 0 leap second. Their is a pattern in the leap second.
If the scientist have added a leap second in the last 44 years, that is from the time that they began talking about time correction and leap seconds, please post citation of the year.QuoteDo you really think scientists are this stupid?
No Liars, when it comes to defend the heliocentric fair-tailQuoteThat such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?
When did it become important to have a an accurate time system?
Oh yes in the computer age.
When did the computer age start?
in the 60'sQuoteYou are extremely ignorant.
So tell me, how does it feel that an ignorant man was able to debunk your heliocentric fair-tail?
But if I am wrong, please post citation where it states that from 1972 and afterwards they subtracted a leap year!!!
Lenght of a day today : 24 hours and 0.57 ms
Lenght of a day at Wednesday, 25 July 1973
24 hours and 2.2120 milliseconds
Where is your claimed +27 seconds longer day ?
A leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in order to keep its time of day close to the mean solar time, or UT1.
A leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in order to keep its time of day close to the mean solar time, or UT1.
Glad you've finally come to your senses.
QuoteYou are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).
In the last 44 years, the scientist have added 27 lead seconds and subtracted 0 leap second. Their is a pattern in the leap second.
If the scientist have added a leap second in the last 44 years, that is from the time that they began talking about time correction and leap seconds, please post citation of the year.QuoteDo you really think scientists are this stupid?
No Liars, when it comes to defend the heliocentric fair-tailQuoteThat such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?
When did it become important to have a an accurate time system?
Oh yes in the computer age.
When did the computer age start?
in the 60'sQuoteYou are extremely ignorant.
So tell me, how does it feel that an ignorant man was able to debunk your heliocentric fair-tail?
But if I am wrong, please post citation where it states that from 1972 and afterwards they subtracted a leap year!!!
Lenght of a day today : 24 hours and 0.57 ms
Lenght of a day at Wednesday, 25 July 1973
24 hours and 2.2120 milliseconds
Where is your claimed +27 seconds longer day ?
Funny people make funny math!
Leap second, not millisecond.
A leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in order to keep its time of day close to the mean solar time, or UT1.
This song might help you.
https://www.sciencealert.com/sorry-everyone-2016-will-have-an-extra-second-added-to-the-end-of-it
Sorry Everyone, 2016 Will Have an Extra Second Added to The End of It
Yep, as you finally count down the end of 2016, you'll have to make it past 11:59:60, thanks to the addition of an extra 'leap second'.
These leap seconds are added to make up for the fact that Earth's rotation is gradually slowing down, and to make sure that our precise clocks remain in sync with how long a day lasts on Earth.
"This extra second, or leap second, makes it possible to align astronomical time, which is irregular and determined by Earth's rotation, with Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) which is extremely stable and has been determined by atomic clocks since 1967," explained the Paris Observatory in France, which houses the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), responsible for synchronising time.
When exactly that leap second will be added depends on your time zone - UTC is the primary time standard by which the rest of the time zones around the planet are set - but it'll be an extra second in the last minute of the year, which means the final minute of 2016 will last for 61 seconds.
"The sequence of dates of the UTC second markers will be: 2016 December 31 23h 59m 59s, 2016 December 31 23h 59m 60s, 2017 January 1, 0h 0m 0s," the IERS website states.
A leap second was added last year at the end of June, and it's usually done either in the middle or at the end of the year, because our poor old technology can't handle slotting the extra second in anywhere else.
So why do we need leap seconds at all? An astronomical day is marked by how long it takes Earth to spin on its axis, and this isn't as reliable as you might think.
Earth's rotation fluctuates slightly year to year, sometimes getting longer, sometimes shorter. Overall, it's gradually slowing down ever so slightly as a result of the Moon's tidal pull acting like a brake on our planet.
The spin is also influenced by geological events such as strong earthquakes, and even the freezing and melting of ice sheets.
As the planet spins slower, astronomical time gradually falls out of sync with atomic time (TAI), which is measured here on Earth by nearly 400 super-accurate atomic clocks.
"As a result, sometimes we need to add an extra second to our clocks, because Earth's rotation is slowing down by two-thousandths of a second every day," Signe Dean explained for us last year.
This is also the same reason that we add leap days to certain years. And if you thought 2016 felt extra long, then, you're right, because this year had a leap day as well as getting an extra leap second.
When exactly that leap second will be added depends on your time zone - UTC is the primary time standard by which the rest of the time zones around the planet are set - but it'll be an extra second in the last minute of the year, which means the final minute of 2016 will last for 61 seconds.
Atomic clocks were not invented for computers.
When have we ever subtracted a leap second from 1972You're right. We never have and never will have a negative leap second. That's the very nature of a leap.
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.
In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.
You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.
If days are slowing at an exponential rate, it's not "worse", it's much, much "better". It would mean that the rate with which the rotation slowed down in the past used to be much lower.
But all that is pretty irrelevant. I explained where you go wrong in the other thread.
If this is true, then it would also mean the same for the speed of light. Do you want to go down that road?
Can you please show me an angular acceleration of deceleration in the real world, where we have it in as an experiential rate
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
Therefore, at 60 RPM, life could not existed, that means that either
1) your timescales is wrong, that the dinesores live 100 million years ago
or
2) The Earth is Flat.
You can decide what is right, but in the infamous words of MC Hammer
At the beginning, based on the Bible timeline about 6,500 years ago, the earth needed 22.89 hours to make a revolution
Which is more believable
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.
In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.
You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.
If days are slowing at an exponential rate, it's not "worse", it's much, much "better". It would mean that the rate with which the rotation slowed down in the past used to be much lower.
But all that is pretty irrelevant. I explained where you go wrong in the other thread.
If this is true, then it would also mean the same for the speed of light. Do you want to go down that road?
Can you please show me an angular acceleration of deceleration in the real world, where we have it in as an experiential rate
As an answer to your last question, off the top of my head, damped oscillations. Also air resistance (since it is dependent on velocity).
I don't know what the speed of light has to do with this.
Also I did not argue that the deceleration of the earth's rotation is exponential.
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
Therefore, at 60 RPM, life could not existed, that means that either
1) your timescales is wrong, that the dinesores live 100 million years ago
or
2) The Earth is Flat.
You can decide what is right, but in the infamous words of MC Hammer
At the beginning, based on the Bible timeline about 6,500 years ago, the earth needed 22.89 hours to make a revolution
Which is more believable
I see where you lost
We measure time passed in DAYS then years NOT in seconds
That mean when International Atomic time count 1 day by x milliseconds sooner that will accumulate day by day against Universal Time.
Lets exaggerate
IAT 24h
UT is 24 hour +1 sec constant
There you have to add a leap second EVERY DAY
Does that mean that after 10 days your days will be 10 sec longer ?
YES/NO ? :
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.No. Adding a leap second every few years is not the same thing as redefining the length of a year.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.No. Adding a leap second every few years is not the same thing as redefining the length of a year.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
A year is defined as 31,536,000 seconds (give or take). Adding a leap second means that this year will be 31,536,001 seconds long, but next year will still be 31,536,000 seconds (unless they need to add another leap second).
There is even talk of abolishing the leap second.
https://qz.com/432787/the-origin-of-leap-seconds-and-why-they-should-be-abolished/
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.No. Adding a leap second every few years is not the same thing as redefining the length of a year.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
A year is defined as 31,536,000 seconds (give or take). Adding a leap second means that this year will be 31,536,001 seconds long, but next year will still be 31,536,000 seconds (unless they need to add another leap second).
There is even talk of abolishing the leap second.
https://qz.com/432787/the-origin-of-leap-seconds-and-why-they-should-be-abolished/
But a earth revolution only needs 86,400 seconds. Why are you talking years to confuse the people. The people are really smart and can understand everything and you are really discrediting the Spherical Earth Society.
It is clear that you don't understand the basic angular velocity or that you are a troll.
Go ask a fifth grader, maybe he can help you...
Ask him to turn his bicycle upside down so the wheels face up.
Ask him to spin the wheel. If the wheel needs more time to complete the 360 degrees, will it accelerate of decelerate?
If you increase the time, while having the 360 Degrees the same, you will slow down.
Your under pressure to prove to your masters that you are worthy of your position!
While you're at it, ask the sixth grader what the Earth looks like!
Oh, that's right... You'll simply claim "total indoctrination".
While you're at it, ask the sixth grader what the Earth looks like!
Oh, that's right... You'll simply claim "total indoctrination".
You must have some great dreams about the heliocentric fair-tail
Because it generally takes years before a leap second is needed.Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.No. Adding a leap second every few years is not the same thing as redefining the length of a year.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
A year is defined as 31,536,000 seconds (give or take). Adding a leap second means that this year will be 31,536,001 seconds long, but next year will still be 31,536,000 seconds (unless they need to add another leap second).
There is even talk of abolishing the leap second.
https://qz.com/432787/the-origin-of-leap-seconds-and-why-they-should-be-abolished/
But a earth revolution only needs 86,400 seconds. Why are you talking years to confuse the people.
I'm not assuming anything. It's a scientific principles that everything dealing in time is calculated on a linear,
The speed of light, Carbon Dating, Radiometric datingWhat of earth do these have to do with your claims.
And think about it, when you spin a top, the top slows down.Totally incorrect! Ever heard of Newton's First Law of motion.
Same principles applied. The Earth is losing it's energy do to rotation.Sure "same principles", but The rotating earth has no "pivot" and no air resistance.
Your scientist are saying it, not mine!!!No it is not OUR SCIENTISTS it is your total inability to read and understand a document.
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.Yes you can.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.No we aren't.
OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.No. You are the one making the claims. The burden of proof is on you.
If this is true, then it would also mean the same for the speed of light. Do you want to go down that road?How? The speed of light is constant. That would mean the rate of exponential growth would be 0.
Can you please show me an angular acceleration of deceleration in the real world, where we have it in as an experiential rateAgain, stop shifting the burden of proof.
How about this for the reason for the tides,The tides change quite often, typically having 2 high and low tides a day. Are you suggesting these magnetic mountains are magically moving around Earth twice a day?
A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee which talk about a magnetic moutain that pulled the nails out of two ship that sank and I believe 4 ships got lost in the giant whirpool in the center of the North Poll.
This letter was written for the King, and the author was the Einstein of the time for making maps. I don't believe that if Eistein would have written a letter to the President of the United States, that he would lie.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1150242?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Also below is a video of a Russian airplane over the North Poll. I don't know if the video it is true or not, but let me throw it out their for you to decide.
But the letter is real
Are yous stupid or something.No, it was 24 hours and 1 second.
On December 31, 2016 the day was not 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds, but it was 23 hours, 59 minutes and 60 seconds.
https://www.sciencealert.com/sorry-everyone-2016-will-have-an-extra-second-added-to-the-end-of-itIt already did.
Sorry Everyone, 2016 Will Have an Extra Second Added to The End of It
When have we ever subtracted a leap second from 1972NEVER! That doesn't mean the day is growing in length. That means the day is longer than 24 hours. As an example, if an astronomical day is 24 hours and 0.0027 s, then over a year that will add up to roughly 0.986 s so you will need to add a leap second every year. If Earth slows down such that an average day grows to 0.0028, then over a year it will add up to 1.022 s, so it will need a leap second more than every year. If it slows down to 0.0026 seconds, then over a year it adds up to 0.949 s, so you still need to add a leap second every year or so.
Bottom line, the Earth spins slower every year and we have to add a leap second to make it up every x years.Do the math.
That means that the earth was spinning faster in the previous years and thus 140,800 years ago, the earth would be spinning at 60 RPM.
In the last 44 years, that is from the time that it was important to have accurate time, we have been adding leap seconds, never removing them. Not even once did they subtract a second.No it isn't. A linear movement would be starting off adding 1 leap second a year, then going to 2 per year, then 3 and so on.
This is not an oscillation, but a pure linear movement!!
But a earth revolution only needs 86,400 seconds. Why are you talking years to confuse the people. The people are really smart and can understand everything and you are really discrediting the Spherical Earth Society.No it doesn't It needs roughly 86400 seconds for a solar day. It actually needs slightly more than that. (for a sidereal day it needs less).
It is clear that you don't understand the basic angular velocity or that you are a troll.No, it is clear that you don't understand how leap seconds work or lengthening a day.
Go ask a fifth grader, maybe he can help you...Good advice. You should follow it.
[In the] word of our President, FAKE NEWS
While you're at it, ask the sixth grader what the Earth looks like!
Oh, that's right... You'll simply claim "total indoctrination".
You must have some great dreams about the heliocentric fair-tail
Give you one last chance, first think about that why nobody else define apply use or otherwise think about leap second as you, maybe you are the one not understanding it and not the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service ? :D Just maybe
Then Lets examine an actual practical case :
Length of the day today 82800.0005597 seconds thats the Universal time
International Atomic Time 82800 sec a day.
Difference: 0.0005597
remember we have this difference because of the definitions of a day in the two system Atomic time measures the day as 86400 si seconds and universal time refers to the Earth's rotation around its own axis.
What happens when that remains constant for a year ? Means no change in earth angular speed and other factors.
Lets count Days together !
Chose a fairly big number let pass 1787 day
In Atomic Time its : 86400.0005597*1787 = 154396800
In Universal Time : 86400.0005597*1787 = 154396801
Did you noticed something ? 154396801
Thats in red right there is your Leap second, that means we have to LEAP that second to allow Universal time to catch up with the day counting of Atomic time. And Earth not even slowed a bit in our example, we just had the initial difference based on the definitions.
So that is the whole reason behind leap second, hope you understand now.
Any question ?
Hope thats clear.
A graph of the years past from 1972 and the number of leap seconds added
(https://preview.ibb.co/duRK9k/Leap_Seconds_trend.jpg)[/url]
DATA
The years that leap seconds where added
Year Leap Seconds
1972 2
1973 1
1974 1
1975 1
1976 1
1977 1
1978 1
1979 1
1980 0
1981 1
1982 1
1983 1
1984 0
1985 1
1986 0
1987 1
1988 0
1989 1
1990 1
1991 0
1992 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 0
1997 1
1998 1
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0
2003 0
2004 0
2005 1
2006 0
2007 0
2008 1
2009 0
2010 0
2011 0
2012 1
2013 0
2014 0
2015 1
2016 1
2017 0
If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.
In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.
It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.
You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.
If days are slowing at an exponential rate, it's not "worse", it's much, much "better". It would mean that the rate with which the rotation slowed down in the past used to be much lower.
But all that is pretty irrelevant. I explained where you go wrong in the other thread.
If this is true, then it would also mean the same for the speed of light. Do you want to go down that road?
Can you please show me an angular acceleration of deceleration in the real world, where we have it in as an experiential rate
As an answer to your last question, off the top of my head, damped oscillations. Also air resistance (since it is dependent on velocity).
I don't know what the speed of light has to do with this.
Also I did not argue that the deceleration of the earth's rotation is exponential.
oscillation
plural noun: oscillations
1.
movement back and forth in a regular rhythm.
In the last 44 years, that is from the time that it was important to have accurate time, we have been adding leap seconds, never removing them. Not even once did they subtract a second.
This is not an oscillation, but a pure linear movement!!
you showed an antomic clock SKIPPING a second.
So you chose the irrelevant gibberish option then.
You are wrong and trying to confuse the people that read this thread.No. You are wrong and are just blatantly lying to people.
We stopped our watches for 1 second on December 31, 2016 to give time for the earth to come in position!Yes, to bring it in sync.
My math is correctNo it isn't.
Let me put it in a way that you can understand, a day has 24 hours - YesNo it didn't. It means it was making slightly less than 1 revolution per day and that had accumulated to an extra second.
1 hour has 60 minutes and 1 minute has 60 seconds
therefore a day has 86,400 seconds.
If we add 1 second, that means that the day has 86,401 seconds instead of 86,400 seconds.
That means that the earth needed more time to make 1 revolution.
A graph of the years past from 1972 and the number of leap seconds added
What ever, I can't argue with you anymore, you are too exhausting...Is that because I keep refuting your bullshit, explaining why you are wrong?
You are wrong and you know it. The earth slowed down, they have to add a second in order for the earth to be in sync with the atomic clock.No, I'm not. I am quite correct that you are blatantly lying about it. Yes, Earth has slowed down, but not to the extent you claim.
Jack Black, you beat me to it. While I was typing that out, you were doing the exact same thing. See, IFE, peer review works!
What ever, I can't argue with you anymore, you are too exhausting...We are not wrong and we know it!
You are wrong and you know it. The earth slowed down, they have to add a second in order for the earth to be in sync with the atomic clock.
This is my last post in this Thread FOR TODAY.
second was . . . defined as:The length of tne second has to be maintained as defined according to the 1900 rotation rate of the earth because so many other units depend on the second.
the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.
This definition was ratified by the Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960, which also established the International System of Units.
From: Wikipedia, Second (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second)
Now please stop ignoring what I'm telling you. When the clocks were first set up, back in 19something, a day was already not exactly 24 hours. It was a few milliseconds more than that.
Check this out: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/earth-rotation.html
Because the Earth has slowed down a bit from the 18th century, when a day actually was very close to 24 hours, even if now the slowing down stops completely, we'd still have to add leap seconds. According to the website I posted, yesterday a day was about 24 hours and 0.57ms. And the prediction for today is 24 hours and 0.65ms, which means that even if the period of the earth's rotation was kept perfectly as it is today, we'd still have to add leap seconds every 1529.25 days.
Check the table in the website. There's a table that shows the average length of the day, the total yearly excess and the leap seconds that had to be added as a consequence for every year since 1973. The table also shows that the earth has actually SPED UP since 1973.
I really don't know how much more clear I have to make this.
You have no common sense and the thread https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0) prove it.
When you need more time for an object to cover the same distance is it going faster, slower or the same?
This is not really hard to figure out!!! Any grade-school student can tell you the answer
I simply can't resist posting this video.
YOUR calculations in a nutshell
You have no common sense and the thread https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0) prove it.No, that thread shows I do have common sense and will be convinced by evidence. If anything it shows you are the one lacking.
When you need more time for an object to cover the same distance is it going faster, slower or the same?That is right. Any grade-school student can tell you the answer.
This is not really hard to figure out!!! Any grade-school student can tell you the answer
I simply can't resist posting this video.Nope. Closer to yours.
YOUR calculations in a nutshell
You have no common sense and the thread https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71430.0) prove it.What on earth are you talking about? The earth's rotation rate varies very slightly - agreed?
When you need more time for an object to cover the same distance is it going faster, slower or the same?
This is not really hard to figure out!!! Any grade-school student can tell you the answer
I admit it, that I was wrong.Thank you.
Below are the calculationI'm not sure exactly what you are calculating here.
Now if the Spherical Earth believers think that it is OK, after all that energy that was released in the Big Bang, that threw the earth billion of miles to only have the earth rotate 5 times the speed of today's rotation, then I’m OK with it.Earth did not exist at the time of the big bang, so it wasn't thrown. It only formed roughly 5 billion years ago if I recall correctly, so that would only put it at roughly 3 times.
To me it does not make any common sense, that such an explosion would make the earth to rotate so slowly. Hey, but yesterday you proved that you don’t have any common sense in your group.Firstly, the big bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion of space time.
Don’t forget that the dot was spinning very fast.Says who?
So we can deduce that the notion of a rapid spin of the dot is false, unless you have the physics to show what put the brakes on the earth to stop spinning.I would say that rapid spinning dot is likely false.
Let me clarify my calculations.
For a circle to make 1 revolution, it needs to go threw 360 degrees or 2pi or 6.283 rad
A year has 365.25 Days, so a Day has 6.283 rad
In 1 year we have 365.25 days times 6.283 rad = 2294.933 rad
1 day has 86400 sec and a year has 31,557,600 sec
From 1972 till 2016 we have 44 years
In 44 years we have 1,388,534,427 sec (including the 27 leap second) and we have traveled by 100,977.071 rad
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05 rad/sec
The angular velocity after 44 years is the distance traveled divided by the time needed
100,977.071 rad / 1,388,534,427 sec = 7.272205075235E-05 rad/sec
Final angular velocity = Initial angular velocity + angular acceleration * Time
We get an angular deceleration of 1.018396E-21 rad/sec^2 for the 44 year duration.
So, if you put the numbers back to the equation and since acceleration is the opposite of deceleration ...
You get the table below.
Now is their any problem with my math?
Let's talk about conservation of angular momentum in the thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71441.0
Let me clarify my calculations.
For a circle to make 1 revolution, it needs to go threw 360 degrees or 2pi or 6.283 rad
A year has 365.25 Days, so a Day has 6.283 rad
In 1 year we have 365.25 days times 6.283 rad = 2294.933 rad
1 day has 86400 sec and a year has 31,557,600 sec
From 1972 till 2016 we have 44 years
In 44 years we have 1,388,534,427 sec (including the 27 leap second) and we have traveled by 100,977.071 rad
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05 rad/sec
The angular velocity after 44 years is the distance traveled divided by the time needed
100,977.071 rad / 1,388,534,427 sec = 7.272205075235E-05 rad/sec
Final angular velocity = Initial angular velocity + angular acceleration * Time
We get an angular deceleration of 1.018396E-21 rad/sec^2 for the 44 year duration.
So, if you put the numbers back to the equation and since acceleration is the opposite of deceleration ...
You get the table below.
Now is their any problem with my math?
Let's talk about conservation of angular momentum in the thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71441.0
Yes namely the current application of leap second have NOTHING to do with the earth slowing down but everything to do between the already present different between Atomic Time and Universal time.
Let me clarify my calculations.
For a circle to make 1 revolution, it needs to go threw 360 degrees or 2pi or 6.283 rad
A year has 365.25 Days, so a Day has 6.283 rad
In 1 year we have 365.25 days times 6.283 rad = 2294.933 rad
1 day has 86400 sec and a year has 31,557,600 sec
From 1972 till 2016 we have 44 years
In 44 years we have 1,388,534,427 sec (including the 27 leap second) and we have traveled by 100,977.071 rad
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05 rad/sec
The angular velocity after 44 years is the distance traveled divided by the time needed
100,977.071 rad / 1,388,534,427 sec = 7.272205075235E-05 rad/sec
Final angular velocity = Initial angular velocity + angular acceleration * Time
We get an angular deceleration of 1.018396E-21 rad/sec^2 for the 44 year duration.
So, if you put the numbers back to the equation and since acceleration is the opposite of deceleration ...
You get the table below.
Now is their any problem with my math?
Let's talk about conservation of angular momentum in the thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71441.0
Yes namely the current application of leap second have NOTHING to do with the earth slowing down but everything to do between the already present different between Atomic Time and Universal time.
No you are wrong, the atomic time will lose 1 second in 100 million years.
Universal time, is the time that it takes for the earth to rotate once on it's access.
If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.
So that Rolex that I have is a peace of shit...
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05 rad/secNo it wasn't. Prior to the introduction of leap seconds we didn't have time synchronised anywhere near as well.
If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.Only if they started based upon the length of a day being exactly 86400 s, which it didn't.
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05 rad/secNo it wasn't. Prior to the introduction of leap seconds we didn't have time synchronised anywhere near as well.
We didn't care about the leap second.
When we decided to make it all official and rigidly set, atomic clock times were already 10 seconds ahead, and we just stuck that into the definition. Atomic time is currently 37 s ahead of UTC, the 27 leap seconds and the 10 extra seconds.
It was only 1955 when they started using them and 1958 when they set it to try and match an equivalent of UTC, based upon impefect observations. Leap seconds were introduced roughly 10 years later (technically 14, with 2 leap seconds added at the start) and UTC was set to 10 s ahead of atomic time.
This was also done without taking into consideration gravitational time dilation, meaning the various clocks used were ticking at different rates. So atomic time wasn't even counting the seconds exactly.
This indicates that even during that time, the Earth was still spinning at pretty much the exact same rate.
If you did want to try and figure out a day that was 86400 s 1972 is not the right year.
Instead it would be based upon what the SI tried to model it off, which was Dec 31st 1899.
But even that wasn't constant as it shifted what it was trying to model, first making a second based upon one fraction of a tropical year, then using a slightly different fraction, before just setting it to atomic time.
So even then you likely didn't have exactly 86400 s in a day.
So while the math may be correct, what you are measuring/assuming is not.
We simply haven't been measuring atomic time for long enough to be able to try and develop an empirical model (i.e. one based purely upon the numbers) to try and figure out how fast Earth was spinning ages ago. You definitely wont know if it is linear or exponential or logarithmic and so on. They all approximate linear functions for small scales (every continuous function does).If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.Only if they started based upon the length of a day being exactly 86400 s, which it didn't.
Is the earth slowing down or spinning up.On average it is slowing down.
I have presented data that shows that it is slowing down.No you haven't. You presented data that shows that it takes slightly longer than 85400 s to complete an average solar day.
I have given you a reference frame where the standard is accurate to 1 second in 100 million years, and based on this standard in 44 years, it lost 27 seconds.Yes, the standard is accurate to 1 second in 100 million years, i.e. that is how much the clock can drift by.
After studding JackBlack comment, I redid the calculations by using physics and it turns out that I overestimated the earth rotation speed.
I admit it, that I was wrong.
JackBlack was the only one from the spherical group that had an idea on how to approach the problem, everybody else was just a bullshit artist saying that it was not a full second but a millisecond.
Based on what you're saying a day should have 24 hours and 27 seconds, which does not.
Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!
If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...
The 27 seconds in withing 44 years.Yes, 27 seconds in 44 years is how much a rotation is off from the ideal 86400 seconds.
The 27 seconds is not a 27 second change in day length, but a 27 sec accumulated time difference between UT1, astronomical time, and TAI, International Atomic Time, over 44 years. TAi is counting seconds using the SI second defined from a Solar year in about 1900.Based on what you're saying a day should have 24 hours and 27 seconds, which does not.
You need to review the angular velocity equations, as did.
The 27 seconds in withing 44 years.