BTW it did not stop spinning. It just slowed down so much that relative to the mantle it was spinning in reverse. But relative to its own axis it is still spinning in the same direction.
105
GreenCrunch - 1mon
an important distinction, but come on that's not a good headline!
44
usualsuspect191 @lemmy.ca - 1mon
So it's like all the misleading headlines on inflation
24
Wren @lemmy.today - 1mon
Just checking to make sure we're on the same page. Were you expecting fetish porn, too?
14
BeeegScaaawyCripple - 1mon
Is financial devastation a fetish
5
Wren @lemmy.today - 1mon
Yes, but it's impolite to jerk off with your bankruptcy advisor unless you ask first.
2
NotSteve_ - 1mon
Do you know what the impact of that is?
12
cassandrafatigue @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1mon
I'm sure it's fine; wasn't doing anything important
21
then_three_more @lemmy.world - 1mon
The implications of this change in the inner core's movement for Earth's surface can only be speculated. Vidale said the backtracking of the inner core may alter the length of a day by fractions of a second:
Article says it's so small it's likely lost in other variations, so it doesn't seem like it would be.
2
infinitesunrise @slrpnk.net - 1mon
No, the Earth's spin rate is always changing in very tiny ways and global positioning systems update regularly to account for this.
2
Vegafjord eo - 1mon
If the days last longer, thats a plus in my book.
3
Hupf @feddit.org - 1mon
What does Bill Clinton have to do with the marked text?
25
QuinnyCoded @sh.itjust.works - 1mon
A sex scandal involving Bill Clinton, the president of the United States, and Monica Lewinsky, a White Houseintern, erupted in 1998. Their sexual relationship began in 1995—when Clinton was 49 years old and Lewinsky was 22 years old—and lasted 18 months, ending in 1997.[1] Clinton ended televised remarks on January 26, 1998, with the later infamous statement: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
I guess Mandela effect with thinking it was "I did not have sexual intercourse..."?
13
Tiger666 @lemmy.ca - 1mon
Inner core = intercourse
10
Hadriscus @jlai.lu - 1mon
wow ok, that was a stretch
14
BlameTheAntifa @lemmy.world - 1mon
Aren’t we due for a magnetic pole reversal? Would this be related?
24
kerrigan778 - 1mon
They appear to be fully random so it's gamblers fallacy to say we're due for one, though this has been a very long gap without one. There don't seem to be extinction events associated with them regardless though so nbd hopefully.
26
explodicle @sh.itjust.works - 1mon
Nice try Kerrigan, it's clear you're trying to trick the Terrans into not shielding our computers.
4
neukenindekeuken @sh.itjust.works - 1mon
No extinction events related, but it will fuck up the modern world for a good bit until we can adapt.
1
kerrigan778 - 1mon
To some degree maybe, to a massive degree maybe. It seems unlikely to happen on such a fast timescale that we couldn't respond to it though.
1
infinitesunrise @slrpnk.net - 1mon
Nothing in nature is fully random, just chaotic beyond our ability to model. Effectively random though? Yes, totally.
1
WolfLink @sh.itjust.works - 1mon
We have good reason to believe quantum mechanics is truly random
1
infinitesunrise @slrpnk.net - 1mon
What's the good reason?
1
WolfLink @sh.itjust.works - 1mon
The Bell Test rules out the possibility of a local hidden variable theory explaining quantum entanglement. That means the states of the two entangled particles are not simply unknown before measurement, they do not have independent states.
This means either, when you measure one particle it “instantaneously” affects the other, which has weird implications for causality because which particle is measured “first” can depend on your reference frame.
Or there is something statistical and truly random going on.
1
infinitesunrise @slrpnk.net - 1mon
Oh I didn't mean to refer to hidden variables. I think there's just a fatal superfluence of available variables. Rather than an inability to know, the problem is an inability to know everything all at once.
The Bell Test is still a cool proof though.
1
kerrigan778 - 1mon
Realities of the uncertainty principle aside, the difference is academic when you look at chaotic phenomena.
poplargrove in onehundredninetysix
Rule
BTW it did not stop spinning. It just slowed down so much that relative to the mantle it was spinning in reverse. But relative to its own axis it is still spinning in the same direction.
an important distinction, but come on that's not a good headline!
So it's like all the misleading headlines on inflation
Just checking to make sure we're on the same page. Were you expecting fetish porn, too?
Is financial devastation a fetish
Yes, but it's impolite to jerk off with your bankruptcy advisor unless you ask first.
Do you know what the impact of that is?
I'm sure it's fine; wasn't doing anything important
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240613161147.htm
Is that enough to be problematic for GNSS?
Article says it's so small it's likely lost in other variations, so it doesn't seem like it would be.
No, the Earth's spin rate is always changing in very tiny ways and global positioning systems update regularly to account for this.
If the days last longer, thats a plus in my book.
What does Bill Clinton have to do with the marked text?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal
I guess Mandela effect with thinking it was "I did not have sexual intercourse..."?
Inner core = intercourse
wow ok, that was a stretch
Aren’t we due for a magnetic pole reversal? Would this be related?
They appear to be fully random so it's gamblers fallacy to say we're due for one, though this has been a very long gap without one. There don't seem to be extinction events associated with them regardless though so nbd hopefully.
Nice try Kerrigan, it's clear you're trying to trick the Terrans into not shielding our computers.
No extinction events related, but it will fuck up the modern world for a good bit until we can adapt.
To some degree maybe, to a massive degree maybe. It seems unlikely to happen on such a fast timescale that we couldn't respond to it though.
Nothing in nature is fully random, just chaotic beyond our ability to model. Effectively random though? Yes, totally.
We have good reason to believe quantum mechanics is truly random
What's the good reason?
The Bell Test rules out the possibility of a local hidden variable theory explaining quantum entanglement. That means the states of the two entangled particles are not simply unknown before measurement, they do not have independent states.
This means either, when you measure one particle it “instantaneously” affects the other, which has weird implications for causality because which particle is measured “first” can depend on your reference frame.
Or there is something statistical and truly random going on.
Oh I didn't mean to refer to hidden variables. I think there's just a fatal superfluence of available variables. Rather than an inability to know, the problem is an inability to know everything all at once.
The Bell Test is still a cool proof though.
Realities of the uncertainty principle aside, the difference is academic when you look at chaotic phenomena.
I agree, but my pedantry knows no bounds!
Relevant:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240613161147.htm