Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 01:56:23 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 25, 2017, 01:44:49 PM

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 ? 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.

You are wrong and trying to confuse the people that read this thread.

We stopped our watches for 1 second on December 31, 2016 to give time for the earth to come in position!

My math is correct

Let me put it in a way that you can understand, a day has 24 hours - Yes

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.

velocity is distance divided by time if you increase the time and keep the distance the same, then your velocity decrease.



Wharton Studio circle LED clock displays leap second at 23:59:60 on 31 December 2016. Synchronised via a local NTP stratum 1 GPS master clock.





On 2016-12-31 in the UTC-laboratory at VTT MIKES, Otaniemi, Finland.
Note how 23:59:59 is held for 2 seconds on the displays.





maybe you prefer this





Your Heliocentric Fair-tail is over

A graph of the years past from 1972 and the number of leap seconds added

[/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

Look at it from an economical view,

If you are taking loans to by stuff and never pay them back, what is gong to happen?

1) You are going to owe a lot of Money

2) The loans will balance themselves out and you will not owe anything.

A graph of the years past from 1972 and the number of leap seconds added

[/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

you showed an antomic clock SKIPPING a second.

Atomic clocks dont make the earth rotates slower

Show me the earth rotating slower by 27 sec since 1973 here :

Put up or shut up

Oh btw yesterday was 86400.0005597 sec long or s hour and 0.5597 ms thats not even longer by 1 sec ?

Almost like if this is true , right ? :

Length of the day today  86400.0005597 seconds thats the Universal time

International Atomic Time  86400 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.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 25, 2017, 11:55:44 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 08:12:50 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 25, 2017, 07:31:30 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

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!!

I see you are extremely confused.

I mentioned oscillations and loss of speed due to air resistance because you wanted a real world example of something decelerating/decaying at an exponential rate. Which is largely irrelevant.

I have no idea what "linear movement" you're talking about.

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 showed an antomic clock SKIPPING a second.

NO, the way that the earth can't keep up with the atomic clock!

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this meas you are in.

The atomic clocks lose a second every 100 million years.

The earths rotation can't keep up it's speed when compared to the atomic clock  and that is why we have a leap second!!!

The Earth is spinning slower, thus in the past it was spinning faster!!!

Busted!!!

You are proving one thing to me... and it's not the earth being flat.

Have you noticed how few of your fellow flat earthers are supporting your arguments? You are actually setting them back.

You have turned this forum from a place for interisting debate to a one man freak show that makes flat earthers appear ignorant and possibly insane.

But I'm sure you will fail to comprehend what I've just written and either ignore it or come back with irrelevant gibberish...

The simple math has proven your hypothesis wrong.

You may be able to bullshit your way out off every technical subject, but this is pure simple angular acceleration problem.

SE have stated that it's not 1 second, but a millisecond to defend their religion, but actual video from scientific centers that keep time, disproves this notion. It was a full second, not a mill-second!

I have taken the fight to you! I did not wait to be attacked and then defended my self, but instead I attacked your hypothesis and proved to be false!!!

I have attacked your ideology and you have lost.

The way this forum was, FE would say something and you would attack him like a wolf pack does. You would come from all different angles and send him on a wild goose chase to prove you wrong. It was a smart strategy, but it did not work for this big problem that you have.

Now the tables have turned with simple angular acceleration that any high school student must solve to enter the Greek University.

The math does not lie and you have no defense to combat this, so if you can't hit the math, you hit the person that is talking about the math.

It's time to face reality!

Have a nice day and enjoy God's creation of a Flat, non motionless earth!!!

So you chose the irrelevant gibberish option then.

So you chose the irrelevant gibberish option then.

Putting your head in the ground, will not make the problem disappear.

When your hypothesis is destroyed, then you call it "gibberish"!

It;s like when Hilary lost and said, that it was not her fault, but the "deplorable's" and the Russians changing our elections that caused her to lose>

May style of defense, bullshit!!!

I have been made the Master Representative for the SE Confederation.

On behalf of our leading council, I offer you our surrender.

You are correct, the earth is flat, and we cannot deny it anymore. We have buckled under the weight of your incredible intellect.

Now please go away.

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 correct

No it isn't.

Let me put it in a way that you can understand, a day has 24 hours - Yes
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.

No it didn't. It means it was making slightly less than 1 revolution per day and that had accumulated to an extra second.
It doesn't mean Earth is slowing down.

A graph of the years past from 1972 and the number of leap seconds added

Perhaps you would prefer this graph, by way of a google drive spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_sFabNEpyH-rOUC93v7XiKGj2zkYELq-eaPpihxru4A/edit?usp=sharing

And some images for those who just want them:


Notice how instead of just looking at number of leap years added, it looks at the average length of the day for that year (and for a 10 year period)?

Notice how it shows fluctuations in the length of the year?
Notice how now a linear trend shows the length of day (not leap seconds added) is decreasing?

If the number of leap seconds added was perfectly (well, slightly off perfect due to leap years) linear with the year, then it would indicate the length of the day is constant.

Perhaps this will make it easier to understand:
Each day is 86400 seconds. So a year is 31536000 seconds.
If they add a leap second, that means the year is 31536001 seconds, and thus the length of the day on average is 86400.0027 seconds.

If it was a leap year then it would get an extra day, so the year would be 31622400 s normally, or 31622401 s for a leap second, and the leap second makes the average length of the day 86400.0027 s (there isn't enough sig figs to show the difference between this and a normal year).

That means the average length of a day in 2016, when they added a leap year was 86400.0027 seconds.
This also means the average length of a day in 2973 when they added a leap second was 86400.0027.

Notice how these are the same?

Now consider an alternative:
In 1973, they add a single leap second, making the year 31536001 seconds, and thus the length of the day on average is 86400.0027 seconds.
Then in 2016, they added 27 leap seconds (that year, so the clock would go 59, 60, 61, 62 ... 86, 00, making the year a total of 31622427 s, and thus the day an average of
86400.074 s.
Notice how now this is actually longer?

So notice how we haven't gained 27 s from those 27 leap seconds?

Notice how to actually get those 27 extra seconds for a year you would need to add 27 leap seconds in that year?

Notice how that would mean rather than a linear increase in the total number of leap seconds you would need an exponential increase in the total number of leap seconds to indicate what you want?

Going to admit you were wrong yet?
If not, are you at least going to respond to this rationally, addressing the issues raised?
If not, can you just leave the thread rather than continuing to spout the same refuted nonsense?

What ever, I can't argue with you anymore, you are too exhausting...

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.

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.

A year today is not 27 seconds longer than it was in 2971 like you are claiming.

They have to periodically add leap seconds because a solar day (on average) is not 794243384928000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the hyperfine splitting of a Caesium 133 atom. It is ever so slightly longer.

I have shown quite well that that is not the case.

If you were to add a leap second every year, that doesn't mean the year is getting longer every year. It means the year is 1 second longer than 365 days (or 366 for a leap year).
If every year is that extra second longer, that means it is staying the same length, not increasing.

In order to show an increase in the length of the year from leap seconds added you need the number added each year to increase.

Either respond to what I have said and shown in a rational manner, or fuck off.
Start by telling us the average length of a day in 1972, 1973, 1976, 2015 and 2016.
Then tell us which one was longer, which was shorter and which were the same.

Just leave him to it, the man clearly has issues. We can all see the massive holes in his logic and comprehension that lead him to misunderstand information and believe he is more intelligent than he is.

He isn't being willfully ignorant, he obviously has some kind of cognitive issues, so what is the point of debating with him?

Do I bother?  Is it worth the effort?  Yes, if only to see the outlandish response!

First, if you are trying to disprove RE, then we must use the RE model, so no whining about "but the earth doesn't rotate, proved you wrong!"  Okay?

Before we define a "day" we have to look at how time measurements were created.

How many hours have been defined as a "day?"  The man-made structure of time, hours/minutes/seconds, says there are exactly 24 hours in one "day."  Remember, the clock is an invention of MAN.  We could have just as easily said the "day" has 18 floombahs and 57 snaghorts.  But we don't, it's 24 hours.  That is the MAN-MADE definition.  But it turns out - wait for it - when the clock was invented centuries ago, it wasn't exactly precise, and doesn't account for minor variations in the Earth's orbit.  (Oh dear, that can of worms is being dealt with elsewhere.)

So how long does it take the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees?  The answer is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seconds.  "That's way off!" I hear you scream, "The Earth would have been rotating at the speed of light in 1625!"

It's called a "Sidereal Day" and is the amount of time the Earth takes to rotate as measured in relation to the fixed stars.  This time span fails to account for the motion of the Earth around the sun.  Instead of defining a "day" as one 360 degree spin, it is defined as the time elapsed for the sun to appear at the zenith from day to day.  Because the Earth has changed position since the last high noon, it takes a few minutes each day for the Earth to rotate a bit more so the sun again appears at the zenith.  We call this a Solar Day, and the time it takes is almost exactly 86,400 seconds, or 24 hours, zero minutes, and zero seconds.

We know you like pretty pictures.  Here's one showing the difference between a sidereal and solar day.



I said "almost exactly."  The EXACT amount of time between two solar noons is 86,400.002 seconds.  The atomic clock measures a day as exactly 86,400.000 seconds, where one "second" is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.  I suppose we could actually redefine a "second" and add a few periods of rotation to make a second just a bit longer so the clock day is 86,400.002 seconds.  But we don't, we add a "leap second."  Because, you see, after many days, that .002 second error adds up to about a second.  Now the clock is ahead of the Earth.

"Hah!  You proved the Earth is slowing down!"  No, son, be still.  I didn't.  I proved that the atomic clock is out of sync with the solar day.  The day does not change, but this error adds up.  So we stop the clock by one second every few years to let the error correct itself.

Your chart would, if you knew what you were talking about, would look more like this.



where UTC is the atomic time and UT1 is the actual time of day according to the Earth's rotation, and the chart shows the widening gap in DISPARITY between the two times, not an actual slowing of the Earth.  The leap second is added to bring them back to sync.

The first leap second, by the way, was added in 1972.  So according to your calculations, the Earth has only been slowing down since 1972?

I propose that we define a snaghort as 0.002 seconds.  Each day is now 24:00:00 and one snaghort.  That would eliminate the need for leap seconds, and the Earth's rotation vs man-made time won't befuddle FE kinfolks no more.

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!

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!

Your one has a nicer graph, showing the actual reason for the leap second, and how it puts it in sync.

What ever, I can't argue with you anymore, you are too exhausting...

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.

We are not wrong and we know it!

The number of leap seconds seems too many to you because you are too lazy to read the whole story.

So many leap seconds are added because there are two clocks running at very slightly different rates.

One, UT1, based on the current rotation rate of the earth and the other, TAI, atomic clock time, counting out SI seconds based on the earth's rotation as determined prior to 1900.
So what leap seconds are doing is keeping out Universal Coordinated Time, UTC in step with UT1.
So there is over 70 years of accumulated difference.

Here is more detail on it:
The SI

second was . . . defined as:
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

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.
But we now have atomic clocks far more stable than the slowly changing rate of the earth.
One option could simply to have kept a universal time using the SI sec using the atomic clocks. This would cause our clocks to gradually get out of step with "astronomical time"
So now we have these differing times.

• UT1 is the principal form of Universal Time, the continuation of the old GMT and is "astronomical time", see Universal Time.
  
  
• TAI, Temps Atomique International, is the international atomic time scale based on a continuous counting of the SI second, defined by 1900 Mean Solar Time. TAI is currently ahead of UTC by 37 seconds.econds.
  
  
• UTC, Coordinated Universal Time, popularly known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), or Zulu time. UTC counts time at the rate of TAI, ie SY secs, but is periodical set, via leap seconds to keep it in step with UT1, "astronomical time".

So leap seconds are not correcting for changes in the current earth's rotation rate, but in the change since 1900 (or earlier).

Hence InFlatEarth's original premise and his conclusions are totally incorrect
The slowing of the earth's rotation only amounts to about 1.4 ms/century.

A real scientist might be able to word this better.

Since you ignored my post yet again, I will continue to post it until you stop ignoring it. There really isn't much more to be added.

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 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 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

Slower like around 0.5-2 millisecond, and that will accumulate over time to a leap second,as explained above. but that doesnt means that the earth slowed 1 sec. It will still go with 24 h + 0.5-2 ms

You have no common sense and the thread 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.
After all, I said that evidence would convince me. You then posted a hypothetical example of said evidence and claimed no one suggested that, even though it was covered by me.

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

That is right. Any grade-school student can tell you the answer.

If you needed 86400.0027 s for an average solar day in 1973, and you needed 9=86400.0027 s for an average solar day in 2016, is that more or less or the same time?
Does that mean Earth is going faster or slower?

If you continually need 101 seconds to complete a lap, does that mean you are going slower, just because you are 1 second over 100 s? NO!
The lap time remains the same.

I simply can't resist posting this video.
YOUR calculations in a nutshell

Nope. Closer to yours.

Again, the graphs of the average length of a day:

Does that look like the length of the day is increasing? NO!

If Earth was slowing down like you claim, that would mean that 2016 would have needed 27 leap seconds, but instead it only got one, so it was exactly the same length as 1976. It was exactly one day longer than 1973.
It was less than one day longer than 1972.

You have no common sense and the thread 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

What on earth are you talking about? The earth's rotation rate varies very slightly - agreed?
The rotation rate over the long term is increasing very very slowly (about 1.4 ms /century) - agreed?
The rotation rate over the short term is unpredictable
And you have no case - just admit that you are wrong!

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.

Nobody tried to put their ideas in a simple example of an angular velocity problem over time.

Below are the calculation






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.

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.

Now come the question about the conservation of angular momentum from the explosion.

Don’t forget that the dot was spinning very fast.

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 am not saying that their was not a braking system, I'm just curious as to what it was and the physics behind it.

I admit it, that I was wrong.

Thank you.

Below are the calculation

I'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.
However, that still appears to be based upon a linear extrapolation, which will not necessarily hold for that length of time.

It also wouldn't mean much. The centrifugal force for Earth at the equator works out to be roughly 0.3% of gravity if I recall correctly. (F=omega^2*r, omega=2*pi/T=2*pi/86400=7.27e-5 rad/s.
Thus F=(7.27e-5)^2*6371000=0.03 m/s^2. Gravity is roughly 10 m/s^2, thus the centrifugal force is roughly 0.3% of gravity).
It is proportional to the angular velocity squared. So multiplying it, even by 5, only increases it by a factor of 25, which brings it up to 7.5%.
So gravity still wins by a very large margin and thus things still stay on Earth.

A 100 kg person would appear to weigh roughly 93 kg.

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.
Secondly, and far more importantly, why would that impart angular momentum?
It is effectively pushing everything outwards. No rotation.

In order to provide rotation it needs to spin one part one way and another part the other way.

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.

As for what puts the brakes on Earth, that would be the moon. Earth doesn't simply lose angular momentum, it transfers it to the moon extending its orbit. That was already pointed out to you.

A brief explanation:
The moon is orbiting Earth, while Earth rotates.
The water on the surface of Earth is somewhat free to move.
The moon exerts a tidal force on Earth and everything on it. This is because one side is closer and thus has more gravitational attraction than the other.
This causes the water to bulge out off Earth (i.e. tides).
But this water doesn't just stay there. It is still spinning with Earth. This means the bulge of water is slightly in front of the moon (measured along the direction of rotation/orbit). You can think of this as it getting pulled up in line with the moon only to move forward a bit due to Earth's rotation.
This makes Earth asymmetric, with a bulge slightly in front of the moon's path.
This in turn exerts a gravitational force on the moon, accelerating it along its orbit and in turn slowing Earth down.
This results in the moon going to a higher orbit and thus taking longer to orbit. This process transfers angular momentum from Earth to the moon.

This makes it a complicated effect.
It is dependent upon the strength of the tidal forces, which is dependent upon the distance between the moon and Earth and thus on the time (as the moon moves further away over time, where this rate varies based upon the strength of the force between the tides and the moon and the size of the moon's orbit). It is also dependent upon how far in front the tides are which is dependent upon the rotational speed of Earth.
I'm not sure what it would end up as.

Also note another issue which causes less predictable changes:
Earth's surface is not smooth. It has mountains and the like.
If you were to take it from a smooth rocky ball with water on top and make a mountain and trench, then you would have mass sticking out. This would increase the moment of inertia and thus to conserve angular momentum Earth would need to rotate more slowly.

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.