Right. That's a better way of saying it. The paper doesn't describe
the numerical techniques well enough to critique them. There is some
sort of linear component to the fit, but it doesn't appear to
correspond to the tidal slowing term. Perhaps clues are buried in the
references.
--
O
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>The 222 year period is most likely a meaningless artifact of the
>data.
Likely lack of DC removal and/or deficient windowing before running
the FFT I suspect they used.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Serbian Astronomical Journal, including mention of negative leap
seconds
http://arXiv.org/pdf/0808.3612
Timekeeping is one of those narrow disciplines where peer review
implies small number statistics. So this paper joins others of
suspect validity such as:
Deines & Williams (2007, AJ
François Meyer said:
> http://arXiv.org/pdf/0808.3612
>
> As the authors write, this is a pure mathematical
> prediction ; of course the agreement between the
> model and the data is excellent for the period
> covered by data, but with 17 harmonic terms it could
> hardly be different.
How many da
To be more convincing I'd like to see what happens to their
model if they used 5, 10, or 15 terms instead of 17. Plotting
the quality of fit against the number of terms used would be
revealing.
Also I'd like to see what happens to their projections if they
used a shorter or longer range of dates.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?ISO-
8859-15?Q?Fran=E7ois_Meyer?= writes:
>Now, though it is hard in the
>paper to figure it accurately,
Look at figure 4, the appropriate caption would have been "Our model
is bunk".
Apart from forcing some poor undergraduates though a lot of math,
this paper
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Steve Allen wrote:
Serbian Astronomical Journal, including mention of negative leap seconds
http://arXiv.org/pdf/0808.3612
As the authors write, this is a pure mathematical
prediction ; of course the agreement between the
model and the data is excellent for the period
cov
Steve Allen wrote:
Serbian Astronomical Journal, including mention of negative leap seconds
http://arXiv.org/pdf/0808.3612
Notice the detail that of the only projected leap second in the period
2006-2024, it was predicted to 2008. This matches the achieved pattern
so far.
It would be inter
Serbian Astronomical Journal, including mention of negative leap seconds
http://arXiv.org/pdf/0808.3612
--
Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855
University of CaliforniaVoice: +1
