Slashdot Mirror


An Average Earth Day Used To Be Less Than 19 Hours Long (theguardian.com)

Scientists have determined that some 1.4 billion years ago, an Earth day -- that is, a full rotation around its axis -- took 18 hours and 41 minutes, rather than the familiar 24 hours. The Guardian reports: According to fresh calculations, a day on Earth was a full five hours and fifteen minutes shorter a billion or so years ago, well before complex life spread around the planet. Scientists used a combination of astronomical theory and geochemical signatures buried in ancient rocks to show that 1.4bn years ago the Earth turned a full revolution on its axis every 18 hours and 41 minutes. The number means that, on average, the length of the day on Earth has grown by approximately one 74 thousandth of a second per year since Precambrian times, a trend that is expected to continue for millions, if not billions, of years more.

113 comments

  1. I'll get more time to do things eventually by ranton · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I just have to wait a few hundred million years for those extra hours each day I have been wanting? Sweet.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What causes the earth to slow down in its rotation?

    2. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      So I just have to wait a few hundred million years for those extra hours each day I have been wanting? Sweet.

      When days are 8 hours longer than they are today, you're just going to have to put with 16hr long work days.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      What causes the earth to slow down in its rotation?

      Project update meetings.

    4. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by NEDHead · · Score: 2

      The moon lags the tides; the tides thus accelerate the moon causing it to move further away, while slowing the rotation of the earth

    5. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Back during introduction to Astronomy back in college. We were taught the earths rotation is slowing, due to the moons gravitational force on the earth. Because the earth has a greater force then the moon, that is why the moon rotates once every 28 days so it always faces the earth. But its force is slowing the earths rotation to a point where the earth is only going to rotate every 28 days. And the moon will always be seen above one spot on earth.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by barakn · · Score: 1

      No. The moon will also slow its rotation and move further away so that the period of its orbit is much longer than 28 days.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    7. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      So I just have to wait a few hundred million years for those extra hours each day I have been wanting? Sweet.

      When days are 8 hours longer than they are today, you're just going to have to put with 16hr long work days.

      So I can cut back to 16h/day? Whew, can't wait!

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions.

      (p.p. Shanghai Bill)

    9. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I heard something like 40 days.

      It's counterintuitive, since it's not between 1 and 28. I suspect it comes down to momentum and energy, and the fact that the moon's a skinny little runt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rotational and translational earths motion generates friction against the aether. Friction just like a charged magnetic spinning, rolling chestnut experiences crossing fields of ... well whatever ...

    11. Re: I'll get more time to do things eventually by Brockmire · · Score: 0

      You win the Internet today.

    12. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Sweet, we'll be able to do away with Daylight Saving Time then!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re:I'll get more time to do things eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC from work...

      Think about it this way:
      The Earth turns in 24 hours, while the moon takes a little less than a month (28ish days) to orbit the earth. We know that the moon's gravity casuses tides, but since the Earth turns faster than the moon orbits, the tides are constantly ahead of the moon. The small amount of gravity caused by the tidal bulge of the oceans is enough to give the moon a tiny tug to try to make it orbit faster.

      However, when something orbits faster, it goes into a higher orbit (and, counter-intuitively, actually takes longer to orbit). Thus the moon is slowly moving away from us (at a rate of around 3.8 cm per year, give or take.)

      If you remember some high-school physics, you probably studied the figure-skater who is able to spin around really fast. This is due to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum - when the skater puts their arms and legs out, they rotate slowly, but when they bring them closer to their center of mass, they rotate much faster due to changes in the rotational moment of inertia of the system. The same is true for the Earth-moon system. As the moon gets farther away, in order for the angular momentum to remain constant, the earth must slow down.

      Disclaimer: IAAP. (I am a Physicist.) This actually isn't actually news, we've known about this phenomenon for many years. The only part that I haven't heard of from the summary is the use of "geochemical signatures buried in ancient rock."

  2. Moon by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    It has been known for a long time that due to moon's effects on tidal bulges, the Earth's rotation has been slowing as the moon moves further away.

    1. Re:Moon by nucrash · · Score: 1

      How does the expansion of the Sun factor into this?

      --
      Place something witty here
    2. Re:Moon by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      How does the expansion of the Sun factor into this?

      If the total mass of the sun isn't increasing, and the distance from the center of the sun isn't increasing; I wouldn't expect it does make a difference... at least not whilst it isn't expanded enough to engulf us.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Moon by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as the sun remains approximately the same mass, it should have no significant effect on the gravity felt by Earth at this distance.

      Of course the sun IS losing mass, both by converting mass to energy in nuclear reactions and through boiling off particles into the solar wind.

      And the Earth also experiences an influence on spin from the sun. If the sun survived long enough, Earth would become tidally locked to the sun - with a single rotation lasting an Earth year and the same side of the planet always facing the sun... the same way the same side of the moon always faces Earth. Earth is far enough away from the sun that the sun will die before this occurs. Mercury is close to the sun and is tidally locked. Venus is closer but has a bizarre backwards slow spin, the cause of I don't think is well understood.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Earth also experiences an influence on spin from the sun. If the sun survived long enough, Earth would become tidally locked to the sun - with a single rotation lasting an Earth year and the same side of the planet always facing the sun... the same way the same side of the moon always faces Earth. Earth is far enough away from the sun that the sun will die before this occurs. Mercury is close to the sun and is tidally locked. Venus is closer but has a bizarre backwards slow spin, the cause of I don't think is well understood.

      The theory is similar to the Giant Impact Theory, in which a young Earth had an collision with a Mars-sized object while it was still molten and plastic enough to reform and the rest of the debris coalesced into the Moon. Except in the case of Venus it was a larger protoplanet that hit it a glancing blow with enough energy to not just stop it's spin but slightly reverse it. Whatever happened to the other planet is unknown, it might have been flung off into deep space or eventually fell into the Sun.

    5. Re: Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be mitigated by the Oracle

    6. Re:Moon by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mercury is close to the sun and is tidally locked.

      Not quite. A 3:2 resonance, actually.

      Are you posting from the 1960s?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Moon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Honestly the textbook that I learned from in the 80s was probably written in the early 60s, so yeah :)

      Point is, Earth won't be tidally locked with the sun.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Moon by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Not before it is consumed by the red giant the sun will become prior to collapsing.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Moon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Correct. Unless we yank it out of the way. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Moon by Ramze · · Score: 1

      There is a possibility that the red giant sun might not go out farther than Venus's orbit, thus merely turning Earth into a molten wasteland on the side tidally locked with the sun. There's also the possibility that even if the red giant sun's size extends to Earth's orbit, Earth may have moved to a more distant orbit from the loss of the sun's mass through fusion and solar wind.... but, again -- molten wasteland on tidally locked side.... at least until the sun becomes a white dwarf star.

      Here's hoping we'll have moved to Mars long before then as Earth will be a dry wasteland long before Sol goes red giant.

    11. Re:Moon by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      ...at least until the sun becomes a white dwarf star.

      What does Peter Dinklage have to do with the sun?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My comment might have been a bit rude. Your response was not.

      Should we ever meet in meatspace I'll buy you a beer.

  3. We need to stop Global Slowing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Resist our Sloth Overlords!

    Make sure you run counter to the Earth's rotation, so that it speeds up!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:We need to stop Global Slowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get on the band wagon early... It's Trumps fault!

  4. Billions of years? Come on! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that the earth isn't going to be spinning anymore once it's been engulfed by the expanding sun. It's not going to be doing anything anything.

  5. So is it... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    1.4 bn years of that time, or years from our time?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:So is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because the days were shorter doesn't mean the years were any different; there'd just be more days per trip around the sun.

    2. Re: So is it... by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      But maybe the years were different. Did someone manage to check this out?

    3. Re: So is it... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Kepler's Third Law, yo:

      The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

      As long as Earth stays about the same distance from the Sun, the length of a year won't change much.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re: So is it... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, people of that time knew the formula.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  6. Well it is a BS "holiday". by Kenja · · Score: 2

    I mean, do we really need a full 24 hours to act environmentally aware if we don't do it the rest of the year?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  7. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Just what I was thinking. Seems to me I read that by 4 billion years from now the sun will be a red giant the size of the earth's orbit.

    Musk and NASA better speed up getting the human race to Mars as well as other inhabitable planets.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  8. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Just what I was thinking. Seems to me I read that by 4 billion years from now the sun will be a red giant the size of the earth's orbit.

    Fantastic. That's approximately when I expect to be able to finally retire.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. 5 hrs 15 min all you got? by PA23 · · Score: 1

    I think my employer has figured out how to stretch a 24 hr day into 30 hrs on a regular basis

    1. Re:5 hrs 15 min all you got? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my employer has figured out how to stretch a 24 hr day into 30 hrs on a regular basis

      So has my lawyer!

  10. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Actually the latest thinking is the the orbit of Earth might expand enough to avoid the incineration Mercury and Venus get. Then the only question is how long it takes the Earth's orbit to decay into the "black dwarf" that the sun will cool into. that timescale is unbelievably huge.

  11. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by mark-t · · Score: 1
    We will be long gone by then... there's no rush.

    Barring extinction by some event before then, I have little doubt we will be a fully interstellar species before the next turn of the millennium.

  12. better for the workers now! by bill.pev · · Score: 1

    Yes, but there would have been 469.188 days per year, unless the earth's rotation around the sun has also been slowing in which case there would have been fewer. Regardless, that would suck because employers still only gave 15-20 days off and required 8 hour workdays. Maybe the extra ~104 days were all weekend days?

    1. Re:better for the workers now! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the length of the year is getting longer. The reason for this is that the sun is slowly losing mass - both from directly converting it into energy and from the solar wind. As the sun loses mass, the Earth's orbit moves away from the sun, increasing the length of the year.

      The effect from this is small though, even by the standards of how the length of the day is changed. Even though the sun burns millions of tons of fuel a second, it's also truly massive, so even billions of years from now when the Sun becomes a red giant, it will still have some 90% of the mass it has today.

  13. Easier equatorial rocket launches by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    When the rotation speed was higher

  14. that, and also this Randall Munroe guy by Escogido · · Score: 2
  15. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    We will be long gone by then... there's no rush.

    Barring extinction by some event before then, I have little doubt we will be a fully interstellar species before the next turn of the millennium.

    It would be a pretty depressing thing if we weren't interplanetary by 2118. Interstellar? That's a different order of magnitude and impossible to guess when we might even come close to that.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  16. If this went on long enough, Moon day = Earth day by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    I can't remember where I read or heard this, but the moon and Earth's days would eventually be the same length and they'd lock into each other.

  17. Damn you, global warming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn you, global warming!

  18. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Trump!!

  19. civilization in stasis by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Funny

    So in order to preserve the traditional 24 hour day that is the foundation of our society and culture, we must destroy the Moon.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in order to preserve the traditional 24 hour day that is the foundation of our society and culture, we must destroy the Moon.

      Yup. We must destroy this Harsh Mistress before she destroys us!

    2. Re: civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But without the Big Moon Rising over Miami how will we see trouble on the way?

    3. Re: civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Project update meetings.

    4. Re: civilization in stasis by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you from the 1980s?

      An app!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:civilization in stasis by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I'll just leave this here, but does anyone else remember this kook?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    6. Re:civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here, but does anyone else remember this kook?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So that's where Stephenson got the start of Seveneves.

    7. Re:civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I'm a bit worried about the conservation of angular momentum making the days shorter even if you were able to de-orbit the Moon without killing everyone.

    8. Re:civilization in stasis by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      So in order to preserve the traditional 24 hour day that is the foundation of our society and culture, we must destroy the Moon.

      Yup. We must destroy this Harsh Mistress before she destroys us!

      Damned cold-hearted orb.

    9. Re:civilization in stasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na. Got two options. Remove the moon entirely (body still exists, just in a different solar orbit than the Earth), or convert the moon to rubble and make it a belt around the Earth. Either option would work, but then you have that nasty issue with the Sun which also causes tides and that in turn would slow down the Earth's rotation (although not as fast as the moon does it).

  20. Pilgrims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder the pilgrims had it rough not enough hours in the day.

  21. counting seconds by theprisoner · · Score: 1

    Doing the math on a slowing of 1/74,000th of a second (per year) and 1.4bn years, comes out to a rotation speed of 18.75 hours per revolution 1.4bn years ago. Amazingly close to the 18 hrs and 41 min claimed in the article. If the extrapolation is this close, why bother with the "astronomical theory, geochemical signatures, and modeling"?...just for confirmation?

    1. Re:counting seconds by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Doing the math on a slowing of 1/74,000th of a second (per year) and 1.4bn years, comes out to a rotation speed of 18.75 hours per revolution 1.4bn years ago.

      It comes out even closer if you start from a sidereal day of 23 hours 56 minutes.

      I suspect they came up with the approximation of the rate of slowing from the evidence, and extrapolated that backwards, so it's not surprising it's so "accurate."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:counting seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing the math on a slowing of 1/74,000th of a second (per year) and 1.4bn years, comes out to a rotation speed of 18.75 hours per revolution 1.4bn years ago. Amazingly close to the 18 hrs and 41 min claimed in the article. If the extrapolation is this close, why bother with the "astronomical theory, geochemical signatures, and modeling"?...just for confirmation?

      How did you come up with 74,000?

    3. Re:counting seconds by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      They've known about the slowing of the day (and had a pretty good estimation of it) since the middle of the twentieth century. With the advent of atomic clocks the effect of the slowing day had to be considered, and since then it has been closely monitored. Leap seconds are an invention developed to bridge the gap that has already grown between solar time and the day as defined in 1960. The important thing to note is that the figures given are averages, the day itself does not slow by a constant rate as there are a number of factors that influence it.

    4. Re:counting seconds by geantvert · · Score: 1

      The article explicitly mentions a growth of "one 74 thousandth of a second per year" but the slashdot editors wrote "one 74 thousandth of a second per year". Pfffff...

      Anyways, 24h minus 18h41m = 5h19m = 19140 seconds.
      For a period of 1.4 billions years the rate of change is 19140 / 1.4e9 = 1.3671e-05 = 1 / 73145 second per year.

    5. Re:counting seconds by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      It's much closer to 1/74000 if you start with the correct duration of a current day.

  22. Re:If this went on long enough, Moon day = Earth d by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    you can look that one up, about 50 billion years, and the latest calculations (educated guesses with numbers) are that the earth won't be vaporized by the sun when it becomes a red dwarf but instead Earth's orbit will expand enough to save it

  23. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have little doubt we will be a fully interstellar species before the next turn of the millennium.

    Humans certainly have the technical capacity to pull off such a feat (assuming its possible with the physics of this universe) but I don't think we have the commitment to think long term enough. We're wasting what might have been a few millennia of a stable benign climate. When mass migrations become manditory, our hate for differences in others may result in our own poetic extinction. Oh well.

  24. Old news by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Not only do we have fake news to deal with, but now we have old news to deal with?

    I've known for over a decade that the earth's rotation has slowed drastically (see episodes 5). Anyone with any physics background in the last few decades knew this. Hell, even stackexchange would consider this old news.

    After reading the article, I get the feeling that the person writing it knows as much about science as an ant knows about baking pizzas.

    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. What's the news here? Is it that they narrowed it down more?
      Because this is literally know for decades.

  25. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I was saying interstellar, not merely interplanetary. Obviously we will be interplanetary much sooner.

  26. Slashdot doesn't even know how long a day is... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scientists have determined that some 1.4 billion years ago, an Earth day -- that is, a full rotation around its axis -- took 18 hours and 41 minutes, rather than the familiar 24 hours.

    If you're going to go so far as to specify "a full rotation around its axis" - a sidereal day - then you should know that that does not currently take 24 hours. It takes 23 hours and 56 minutes (and 4 seconds).

    The article gets it right when it says:

    According to fresh calculations, a day on Earth was a full five hours and fifteen minutes shorter

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Slashdot doesn't even know how long a day is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://i.imgur.com/IW8simF.gif

  27. they are a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they don't even know what happened 10.000 years ago, or 100.000 years ago. It's a joke to assume they know what happened billions of years ago. Even the idea the earth is 4 billion years old is already wrong. Or the where the moon came from or what it was made of, they don't know, or don't want to publish...

    1. Re:they are a joke by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      they don't even know what happened 10.000 years ago

      This is young Earth creationism on a whole new level. I'm pretty sure we know what happened in 2008...

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  28. Summary Ignores the Subject of the Article by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article (which you can download with Sci-Hub) is not about the length of Earth's day, although it does produce a new and more accurate estimate of it at early epochs on Earth. The paper is really about the Milankovitch Cycle that controls climate on a ~22,000 year time scale which be evident if TFS bothered to include the paper's title Proterozoic Milankovitch cycles and the history of the solar system.

    The main purpose of the study was to use geological data to construct the Milankovitch cycle going back more than a billion years.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Summary Ignores the Subject of the Article by Bent+Spoke · · Score: 1

      And how about the needless repetition: All the paragraph does is say three different ways that 18 3/4 long, or 5 1/4 shorter. No other actual information. Sheesh. Almost as bad as reading Reuters (and other) news where the same news article commonly appears 3 or more times in different "sections", with the exact same summary. Nothing like adding a bunch of filler rather than unique content. News these days has ended up in a bad place.

    2. Re:Summary Ignores the Subject of the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I remember that from "Being John Milankovitch".

  29. Forever Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, at what point will the Earth stop rotating all together?

  30. In Soviet Earth ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Earth, life slows down the world.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  31. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Barring extinction by some event before then, I have little doubt we will be a fully interstellar species before the next turn of the millennium.

    It would be a pretty depressing thing if we weren't interplanetary by 2118. Interstellar? That's a different order of magnitude and impossible to guess when we might even come close to that.

    Umm, "before the turn of the millennium" means "before 3000AD", not before 2118....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  32. No, still 24 hours by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    An hour still would have been defined as 1/24th of the day. The hours themselves would have just been shorter when compared to phenomena that were not intrinsically tied to the rotation of the earth. Think of how sundials work and how they influenced the idea of an hour; the shadow on the sundial wouldn't just magically skip over several hours each day.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:No, still 24 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While true, I don't think that really matters much.

      If you are willing to compare our old no longer used definition of an hour to a time period humans didn't exist to define anything, that's still just as wrong as applying our currently used definition of an hour to the same time period we didn't exist in.

      If it did matter, it would be worth pointing out that an hour being 1/24th of the day is an old definition we no longer use.
      An hour is currently defined as 3600 seconds, and a second is defined as a bit over nine billion oscillations of an caesium 133 atom.

      With the current definition, the hours back a billion years ago were the same length as they are today, you just had less hours elapsing before a full rotation of the planet occurred.

      Also worth noting is that currently a day, specifically an "atomic day", is just a number of hours, minutes, or seconds times the number of caesium atom oscillations.
      Separately is a solar day, which is a different amount of time, that reflects how long it takes the earth to rotate so that the sun returns to the same spot.
      There is also a sidereal day, similar to above but using stars in the sky instead of the sun.
      There's even a lunar day, but you'd be better off looking that one up yourself as it didn't make sense to me when I heard of it and would need to look it up to copy/paste an explanation :P

    2. Re:No, still 24 hours by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And yeah the discrepancy is made up by adding time at the end of the year....
      https://www.timeanddate.com/time/leapseconds.html?hc_location=ufi
      Aren't seconds just as important as minutes? The whole construct of 24 hours in a day is very recent....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:No, still 24 hours by jrumney · · Score: 1

      That's nice. Would a day have still been defined as approximately 1/365.25 of a revolution around the sun? We could all pretend we're in Scandinavia every few days, when it is dark all day and light all night.

  33. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    p>Umm, "before the turn of the millennium" means "before 3000AD", not before 2118....

    No kidding!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  34. Depends upon how you define an hour by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

    Is an hour 1/24 of a day, or is it 3599-3601 seconds? Because if it's the latter, it has nothing to do with Earth's rotation.

    According to NIST: The 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 cesium 133 atom.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  35. gnomonic nanofizz by epine · · Score: 1

    An hour still would have been defined as 1/24th of the day.

    Defined in that way, an hour is not a measure of time: it's a measure of relative motion.

    The modern hour has since be redefined as a proper measure of time, relative to some kind of gnomonic nanofizz emanating from caesium-133.

    (Somehow caesium-133 must be inherently more "timey" than planet earth.)

    Julian Barbour apparently doesn't think that time really exists in deep physics; he seems to believe it's relative motion all the way down.

  36. Yes, yes, everyone is getting fatter... by shess · · Score: 1

    ... and since all of the weight is distributed on the outside of the sphere, it slows rotation down. But if dying early isn't going to make people lose weight, I doubt having fewer days in the time they do have will manage it.

  37. Year length by multatuli · · Score: 0

    In astronomy class back in the '80s we were already taught a year counted roughly 450 days a billion years ago. Simple calculation from first principles and observed data. Nothing new here.

  38. nothing new here by u19925 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using the ancient paintings of eclipses and comparing with the predictions using Newton's laws of motions shows some discrepancy. If this is assumed due to shift of moon than conservation of angular momentum implies drifting of moon of 3 cm/yr. This was known for over a century ago. Using this knowledge and doing back of the envelope calculations game me almost same results. So there is nothing new here.

    1. Re:nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the paper. You're right that it's been known for a long time that the length of the day changes due to tidal effects, and geologists since the 1990s have used tidal rhythmites (finely laminated sediments) to figure out the history of lunar and daily changes. What's new in the paper is a link to much longer-term Milankovitch cycles (tens of thousands of years orbital cycles). Usually Milankovitch cyclicity has been looked at in more recent rocks rather than billion-year-old-plus rocks.

  39. So much to think about! by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    Are our years shortening or lengthening? When the Sun goes to Gas giant, will this be resolved? I gotta put it on my calendar. Pretty sure this is against our policy of delivering Less content for more money every year. This just doesn't make financial sense. We'll have to find our way out of this arrangement. --- and last... does this mean there is cosmic torsional friction.. where the vacuum of space is bleeding off speed??? I got it!! Its that damn Dark matter!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    1. Re:So much to think about! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are our years shortening or lengthening?

      When the Sun goes to Gas giant, will this be resolved? I gotta put it on my calendar.

      Yes.

      Putting Earths orbit below Suns surface will most likely resolve the whole timekeeping issue.

  40. It's all the PEOPLE by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    All that weight moving around on the planet, is slowing it down LOL.

  41. Effect on climate by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    An earlier article talked about slowing hurricanes the first thing that came to mind was the slowing rotation while not much it can be quite a change for the climate. The bigger the fluctuation of temp between night and day due to heating for a fraction longer and cooling a fraction longer and newtons law of cooling seems to be an exponential relation, this should have a measurable effect on climate after just a century

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    1. Re:Effect on climate by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      eh, 1.7 milliseconds per century in length of day....no

      0.17 seconds longer after 10,000 years

      1.7 seconds longer after 100,000 years

  42. What's old is new by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I attended a presentation regarding the rhythmites relation to the length of the day some 18 years ago. Sure took a long time to verify the hypothesis.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  43. Re: Billions of years? Come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before 3000ad there was only hello kitty!!!

  44. Not anymore by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    An hour still would have been defined as 1/24th of the day.

    That was the original definition but this would mean that an hour would be changing on a continuous basis as the Earth's rotation is affected by tidal forces etc. This would make it useless for many things in the modern world e.g. GPS. As a result, now an hour is defined as 3,600 seconds and a second is defined in terms of periods of radiation from a particular transition in a caesium atom.

  45. Pay attention to Neil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Neil deGrasse Tyson recently pointed out on last week tonight. A day isnâ(TM)t the time for one rotation. Itâ(TM)s the time to return to the same position relative to the sun, which wonâ(TM)t be 1 full rotation because of the bodyâ(TM)s progression in itâ(TM)s orbit around the sun.

    1. Re:Pay attention to Neil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your character set in this conversation offends me.

  46. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Panicked for a moment - the first time I thought it said 4 million.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  47. Re:Billions of years? Come on! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    True, but I also said interstellar, not merely interplanetary.

  48. how does that affect calculations of time? by tatman · · Score: 1

    If a day was shorter a billion years ago, does that mean a year was also shorter or does that mean there were more days in a year?
    If the year is shorter then a 100,00 years (1 billion years ago) wouldn't be the same duration as a 100,000 years currently.....correct?

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re:how does that affect calculations of time? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If a day was shorter a billion years ago, does that mean a year was also shorter or does that mean there were more days in a year?

      The latter. The time for one complete revolution around the sun is (mostly?) independent of the time for one complete rotation. A year might have been shorter because the Earth's orbit was closer to the sun, but it wouldn't be because of the rotation speed.

  49. Finally 24 by exxaminer · · Score: 1

    Perfect! In just about 3000 years we'll have those perfect 24-hour days we've been longing for! Leap years will become obsolete.. and after that .. they'll be negative.. like once in every couple of years, February will be 27 days long.. COOL!

  50. Shorter days in the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, then, how long were the seven days of Genesis 1and 2??