4 ms·

Point 3 is nothing more than character assassination, and I'm disappointed that you are voted up with that in your comment. I do get it. Point 2 is moot. Yes,

by trebor 16y ago

Point 3 is nothing more than character assassination, and I'm disappointed that you are voted up with that in your comment. I do get it. Point 2 is moot. Yes, the cumulative effect is felt—but I'm pretty sure we can adjust for that. In fact, I'm certain that the applications which would notice the change are adjusted for accuracy every so often. Point 1 I concede; I just wasn't certain because I do not know the exact methods by which we measure day length and the level of accuracy they have. I am not blindly assuming that the day is exactly 86400 or 86400.25 solar seconds. --- I do not consider the OP news-worthy. Aside from the attentions of these incredibly accurate applications, which likely get their data from their own mathematicians or from scientific journals, why should the rest of us care? Perhaps I was wrong: this is story dredging, not scientific navel gazing. No mainstream journal would care about this, except to raise its search rankings by covering ANYTHING related to the Japan quake.

mturmon 16y ago
You have a point about the story dredging in the OP. Here's a more carefully sourced story that has more context: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14seismic.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14seismic.html?... I think the overall displacement (around 13 feet as quoted in the article above) is of interest to both specialists and to the lay public. Just as an indicator of size. The main thing that's of interest to earthquake people is not so much the peak displacement, as the underlying stress/strain field (i.e., the forces and displacements as a function of space). There will most certainly be a slew of journal publications, as well as press releases, once the displacement data are analyzed. Here's an example of the latter, for the Landers earthquake, which was a M7.2 in 1992 in the desert east of LA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJaGdfavfs&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJaGdfavfs&feature=chann... The closing frames show how the strain probably accumulated in the centuries prior to the earthquake. * It may be helpful to say: what they're driving at with all this hyper-precise GPS and displacement modeling is a forecast capability for earthquakes, same as is done for weather. In both cases you have sparse measurements of fields that are assimilated into a forward model.
sophacles 16y ago
With regards to your point 2: how do you propose we adjust for the effects if we can't determine how much to adjust for? It is either scientific navel gazing, or we can adjust for the effect using the results of this to properly adjust.

by trebor 16y ago

mturmon 16y ago

You have a point about the story dredging in the OP. Here's a more carefully sourced story that has more context: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14seismic.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14seismic.html?... I think the overall displacement (around 13 feet as quoted in the article above) is of interest to both specialists and to the lay public. Just as an indicator of size. The main thing that's of interest to earthquake people is not so much the peak displacement, as the underlying stress/strain field (i.e., the forces and displacements as a function of space). There will most certainly be a slew of journal publications, as well as press releases, once the displacement data are analyzed. Here's an example of the latter, for the Landers earthquake, which was a M7.2 in 1992 in the desert east of LA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJaGdfavfs&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJaGdfavfs&feature=chann... The closing frames show how the strain probably accumulated in the centuries prior to the earthquake. * It may be helpful to say: what they're driving at with all this hyper-precise GPS and displacement modeling is a forecast capability for earthquakes, same as is done for weather. In both cases you have sparse measurements of fields that are assimilated into a forward model.

sophacles 16y ago

With regards to your point 2: how do you propose we adjust for the effects if we can't determine how much to adjust for? It is either scientific navel gazing, or we can adjust for the effect using the results of this to properly adjust.