Science & TechnologyS


Hourglass

A brief history of time: Time lords

What did you do with the extra second last night? Take another cup of kindness? Let a New Year kiss linger on the lips? Wonder why the radio was playing an extra pip?

If you didn't even notice the leap second being added to all our lives at midnight then that's a shame, because it may be the last. Time, the universal notion that underpins everything we do, is changing: becoming ever more accurate and powerful, it may also be about to split apart.

The trouble is that the experts who are supposed to tell us what time it is cannot agree how to do so. The time lords are falling out, as one group argues for the world to abandon ancient methods of timekeeping and rely solely on super-accurate atomic clocks instead.

Systems such as the new Galileo satellite, launched last week, use atomic time to keep planes in the air and cities moving. American scientists believe it is time to measure out our lives only according to the rate at which the atoms of caesium-133 vibrate. They are opposed by equally passionate astronomers who are keen that we should all continue to measure time by using the movement of the sun in the sky to define a day.

These two versions of time have drifted 32 seconds apart, because the rotation of the Earth is irregular and slowing down.

Comment: Comment: It's odd that this "time" issue keeps coming up. As we have reported before, the subject was brought up in the Cassiopaean Transmissions as early as 22 Feb 1997, but in a very particular context:

A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth. 1) Wave approach. 2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation, orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways. Be vigilant. Be observant. [...]
Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation. Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much, much faster than thought.
Q: (Terry) Is the Earth expanding?...(Ark) Yes, that's the
theory: the idea is that the continents move away because the Earth is expanding, and this is much faster than you know, than geologists were thinking.
A: Continental "drift" is caused by the continual though variable, propelling of gases from the interior to the surface, mainly at points of magnetic significance.
Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation, Earth alternately heats up and cools down in interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by
the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.

And then, on 31 October 2001:

Q: (L) Now according to these guys who are writing this web page about pole shift, they say it can be predicted where the poles will shift to. Is this in fact the case?
A: No.
Q: (L) Why can't pole shifts be predicted? Can't we know where the new pole will end up?
A: Chaotic function here.
Q: (A) There are three possible things that would come under the name pole shift. Only one of them may come, or two, or three, okay? And these are the following - the axis of rotation with respect to stars is changing, straightening out for instance; this is one thing; while all the rest goes with the axis, the lithosphere and the magnetic field. Second, the axis stays where it is, maybe it shifts a little bit; the lithosphere stays where it is - maybe it wobbles - but the magnetic field changes: for instance reverses. Third, axis stays, magnetic field stays, but the lithosphere is moving. So that's three ways a pole shift can happen. And of course there are things that come together. The most dramatic one which is seen from outside is when the axis of rotation changes. The next dramatic one is probably when the lithosphere changes. And the third of unknown consequences is when the magnetic pole changes, okay? So, we want to have an understanding what will be the main change. (A) Are we looking at a pole shift during the next ten or so years with a high degree of probability?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) In this concept of pole shift, what would be the main feature of this pole shift, of all those which we were discussing?
A: New axial orientation, and magnetic reversal.
Q: (L) That's fairly dramatic. (A) Alright, now, change of axis or orientation of axis of rotation: can we say we would straighten up, getting almost perpendicular to the ecliptic? Or the other possibility is that it will fall down being almost parallel to the ecliptic. The third is that we'll flip completely by 180 degrees. We know it's highly unpredictable, but can we have a clue from which one is, so to say, dominate?
A: Perpendicularity will be restored.
Q: (A) You didn't mention a change or shift of the lithosphere alone. Can we...
A: Lithospheric shift will feature to some extent.
Q: (A) But, that means eventually that the equator will almost not change because...
A: Correct.
Q: (A) So it will just shift a little bit, but its not going to go to Hawaii? What about changes in the lithosphere: can we predict a little bit of change in geography, coming from motions in lithosphere and changes in water level?
A: Chaotic features predominate but in general it will be safer inland and in mountainous areas since less folding occurs in such locations.
Q: (A) Now, the change of the orientation of the axis, what would be the main trigger, force, or activity, or what kind of event will trigger this change of the axis?
A: Cometary bodies.
Q: (L) Are the planets of the solar system going to kind of shift out of their orbits and run amok [as some are theorizing]? Is that a possibility?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Due to cometary orbits alone?
A: Yes. Twin sun also.
Q: (A) When we speak about these cometary bodies, are we speaking about impacts?
A: Some will hit.
Q: (A) What would be - if any - the role played by electric phenomena? [The Electric Universe]
A: Twin sun grounds current flow through entire system setting the "motor" running.
Q: (L) Does this mean that all of the different bodies of the solar system are like parts of some kind of giant machine, and once this electric current flows through them, depending on their positions relative to one another at the time this current flows, that it has some influence on the way the machine runs?
A: Yes, more or less.


Laptop

Virus Masquerades as MSN Messenger Beta

MSN Messenger users who may think they're getting a sneak peak at the latest version of Microsoft's instant messaging client are in for a nasty surprise, a Finnish security firm is warning.

A variation of the Virkel instant messaging virus has been circulating amongst MSN users, posing as a leaked beta version of MSN Messenger 8, according to F-Secure.

Calculator

Einstein Was Right (Again): NIST And MIT Confirm That E=mc2

Albert Einstein was correct in his prediction that E=mc2, according to scientists at the Commerce Department;s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who conducted the most precise direct test ever of what is perhaps the most famous formula in science.

Comment: Comment: Why don't they check whether 2+2=4 and with what precision?


Calculator

Math Professor Solves Decades-Old Problem

Columbia, Mo. - A professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia is being recognized for solving a math problem that had stumped his peers for more than 40 years.

The achievement has landed Steven Hofmann an invitation to speak next spring at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid, Spain.

Butterfly

Where's My Flying Car? Designing a World Without Gravity

In the 1960s the Saturday morning American cartoon The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle introduced the world to upsidaisium, that fanciful antigravity element discovered by the uncle of Bullwinkle J. Moose. In the show the title characters triumphantly rode their upsidaisium mine (actually the mine AND the entire Mt. Flatten) to Washington D.C.

Sadly, upsidaisium does not exist, though the dream of antigravity flight endures.

Bomb

AN EXPLOSION ON THE MOON

NASA scientists have observed an explosion on the moon. The blast, equal in energy to about 70 kg of TNT, occurred near the edge of Mare Imbrium (the Sea of Rains) on Nov. 7, 2005, when a 12-centimeter-wide meteoroid slammed into the ground traveling 27 km/s.

Phoenix

AURORA WATCH

A solar wind stream is expected to hit Earth's magnetic field on Dec. 28th or 29th possibly triggering a geomagnetic storm. Northern sky watchers should be alert for auroras.

Telescope

17 planets? Astronomers' heads spinning

The discovery of new objects in the icy junkyard called the Kuiper Belt forces science to rethink the definition of a planet.

Clock

Wait a sec for leap into 2006

Get ready for a minute with 61 seconds. Scientists are delaying the start of 2006 by the first "leap second" in seven years, a timing tweak meant to make up for changes in the Earth's rotation.

Calculator

Is string theory in trouble?

Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been different, physicists have been searching for a “theory of everything” to explain why the universe is the way it is. Now string theory, one of today's leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing number of physicists claim it is ill-defined and based on crude assumptions. Something fundamental is missing, they say. The main complaint is that rather than describing one universe, the theory describes 10500, each with different constants of nature, even different laws of physics.

But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this “landscape” of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours.

The idea is controversial, because it changes how physics is done, and it means that the basic features of our universe are just a random luck of the draw. He explains to Amanda Gefter why he thinks it's a possibility we cannot ignore.