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.
The rate can be speeding up.
Use an exponential growth instead of an exponential decay. See what happens?
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.
We are claiming your analysis of it is wrong.
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.
So you show us the math which indicates this slowing should be linear.
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 rate
Again, stop shifting the burden of proof.
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
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?
And you don't provide open access to the letter.
The closest reference I can find to what you say is a report from someone else mentioning magnetic lands and 4 ships getting shipwrecked on rocked, out a fleet.
So nothing like what you are claiming.
As for the video, there is so little detail it is impossible to tell what it is.
But it may be the remenants of an open cut mine which has had a gas explosion which has been left burning.
Are yous stupid or something.
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.
No, it was 24 hours and 1 second.
This was to shift the day, not lengthen it.
The day before was 24 hours and 0 seconds, as was the day after.
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
It already did.
Guess what? That doesn't mean a day is 1 second longer. That means the day has shifted by 1 second.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a leap second is.
When have we ever subtracted a leap second from 1972
NEVER! 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.
All you can do with your measurement is calculate the average length of the year.
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.
Do the math.
Show how this is the case, taking note of what a leap second really is.
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!!
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.
Instead we just add 1 every now and then. sometimes a year apart, some times more, some times less.
That is an oscillation.
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.
Perhaps this is simpler, a car completes a circuit once every 100 seconds, roughly, but after 1000 laps it has taken a total of 100 001 seconds.
Does this mean the last lap took longer? No. It just means that on average it is actually 100.001 seconds per lap. Some can be faster, some can be longer.
The same applies to leap seconds.
If it was slowing at the rate you claimed, 2016 wouldn't need 1 leap second, it would need 27. 2017 would also need 27, and 2015 would need 26.
Go ask a fifth grader, maybe he can help you...
Good advice. You should follow it.
Ask them about average times.