NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Timing Lunars with a Rock
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Jul 19, 18:25 EDT
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Jul 19, 18:25 EDT
Alex wrote: "I repeat that using a pendulum of fixed length is not a good standard of time. Because the period depends on the amplitude. This was already well-known in XVIII century. Thus the US proposal (as explained in the following message) was not scientifically sound." There's a way around this objection. All you have to do is define the "pendulum-meter" to be the length that yields a two second period in the limit of zero swing amplitude. This is relatively easy since the error in the period depends quadratically on the amplitude. Note that the "pendulum-meter" would also have to be defined in the limit where the mass of the suspending string is zero. Neither one of these is achievable in practice, but in both cases we know how to subtract out exactly the effects of non-zero swing amplitude and non-zero string mass [non-zero string mass?! drat. I swore I would never get into string theory...]. As a standard of measurement, the biggest objection to a "pendulum-meter" is the local variability of the Earth's gravitational field even along one parallel of latitude. I don't think this was any worse than the geographic definition which the French originally adopted, and it may have been better. -FER 42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W. www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
