Talk:Earth's rotation

message: This article needs more information. Maybe someone is able to translate something from the German Wikipedia. I do not have the time at the moment. Weird Bird 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German Wikipedia

message: It is not mentioned in this article why does the Earth rotate ? 202.68.145.230 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section "origin of rotation" right now, which has good information, but for me it was not yet really clear why the earth was actually rotating. After consulting the above website, and another, im going to add it to the "origin of rotation" section. MrZap (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth's present rotation period is the result of tidal friction slowing Earth's rotation from an initial value of about 6 hours 4.5 billion years ago to its present value of 24 hours. Any initial rotation acquired from the collapse of the primordial solar nebula was overwhelmed by the rotation imparted to the Earth by the tangential impact of the Mars-sized Theia/Orpheus. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this, seems very plausible. Could not verify the extend to which factor would be the largest. MrZap (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, the 18th century solar nebular hypothesis already mentioned causes all planets to rotate in the same direction as their orbital revolution. But we now know that two planets (excluding Pluto) do not obey this hypothesis, Venus and Uranus. These exceptions, plus Earth's rapid rotation (and its moon) prove that the solar nebular hypothesis is incomplete. The Late Heavy Bombardment period may explain these exceptions. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Earth rotate

message: Removed confusing remarks about magnetic compass from second sentence.CharlesHBennett (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Added section on Coriolis effect and early demonstrations of earth rotation based on the Coriolis effect in falling bodies, described in German Wikipedia.  Condensed Foucault pendulum section.  CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Manifestations and evidence of rotation, Foucault Pendulum

message: earth rotates in counter clockwise direction.how does it affect the direction of wind and in turn affecting the direction of vortex in water.how does the winds move from equator to the poles.
210.212.244.133 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Coriolis effects in meteorology. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infuence of earth rotation on the direction of water vortex 

message: Could the angle of rotation in the picutre be changed pleaseHpurcell (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify. Do you object to the size of the angle or to its direction? The size is much larger than it is in reality for clarity. The direction is as viewed from the North star. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Angle of rotation

message: I usually don't do any unilateral editing, but the section on the origin was written so poorly and the explanation was flat-out wrong that I had to at least fix it somewhat.  As my cite shows, the original rotation does not have to do with any initial external supernovae or shock wave or anything like this--it is a property of a inhomogeneous dust cloud.  Feel free to change anything, but please cite your work if you do.
--68.195.44.36 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin Section is wrong and written poorly!=

message: User:Jc3s5h asked (in an edit summary),
: Short of writing a bunch of computer software myself, where can I find the maximum deviation between actual and mean solar days?
Well, what's the maximum derivative of the equation of time? —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now answered in the article. A related integral is ΔT, a parabola that is the integral of the rate of increase in the length of the mean solar day, which is linear. Integration of the very small rate of 1.7 ms/day/cy produces the very large change in ΔT of 31 s/cy, or conversely, the rate is the derivative of ΔT. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I do not know of any source which plots the components separately. However, it can be done if the formula for the equation of time is given in a differentiable form. Unfortunately, neither component of the canonical form given in the equation of time article is differentialble. Instead, both components must be replaced by their series expansions. The equation of time article does give the largest term of both series. The series expression which replaces the true anomaly is called the equation of the center. The first three terms of both series are given by Jean Meeus in Mathematical astronomy morsels page 341. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation of day length 

message: Are twenty digits really necessary everywhere? That can't be real precision.--137.112.129.166 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the references for a few of the numbers, and the precision was indeed real. Feel free to check all of them yourself; it's always good to have another pair of eyes to see that things were copied correctly. And there are only about 14 significant figures, not 20. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The figures (14–16 digits) are those provided by the IERS, the international agency responsible for disseminating this information. The associated precision of about 1 is that typical of modern atomic clocks. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant Figures

message: I see that the difference between the overly-simple sidereal time and a correction for precession of the orbit is well covered here and in other articles.  But it also says that this "stellar time" is synonomous with inertial rotation.  But I'm wondering about more subtle effects such as the sun's orbit in the galaxy, the galaxy's rotational motion within the dynamics of the local group, etc.  1 rotation every 250 million years would affect k' by 4 which is well within the 17 decimal places it is known to.
So I'm wondering if the article is sloppy in wording and the stellar time is really the measurement against an inertial non-rotating frame, including all effects (of which the precssion of the V.eq. is the largest component after the orbit of the earth), or the stellar time accounts for the v.eq. only and is not in fact the total of rotation components.
—Długosz (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define k' and v.eq. Earth's inertial rotation is affected by seasonal, decadal and longer variations, which are subtle effects only briefly mentioned in the article. The seasonal and decadal variations together exceed 2 of a day, which swamp any galaxy or local group effects. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: From context, v.eq. is apparently the vernal equinox, but k' is a problem. It might be related to the Gaussian gravitational constant, which is usually symbolized by k, but that is only defined to 10 significant digits (0.01720209895). — Joe Kress (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the reference 6 the stellar day is derived from k', which is "Ratio mean solar day/stellar day". The reference claims it is consistent with the definition of the nominal Earth angular velocity ΩN. ΩN is the reference angular velocity corresponding to the epoch 1820. There is a very similar but not identical value in Aoki et al. on page 361. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other more subtle effects? 

message: :File:AxialTiltObliquity.png is a nice diagram illustrating all relative orientations and directions of the various motions. However (prompted in part by a Science Reference-Desk reader question), the "Orbit direction" vector is ambiguous because we do not know the perspective from which the diagram is made (from "inside" the orbit vs from afar looking in towards the sun). One of those is correct, one of those is not (would give the wrong Orbit direction direction). My addition to the caption clarifying that issue, in accord with the image's own description page statement "Earth is shown as viewed from the Sun; the orbit direction is counter-clockwise (to the left)" was reverted with comment "View is actually from the direction that is perpendicular to the Earth's axis and lies in the plane of Earth's orbit." and reverter recommended bringing here to figure out how to procede (nuke image vs improve caption vs ...). I think it's a good image for tying together multiple topics but needs a clear statement about the perspective. What's a good wording for that? DMacks (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about it and making some drawings, yes, indeed, the view is from the Sun, but on the day of the March equinox. On any other day, the angle between the normal to the plane of the earth's orbit and the axis of Earth's rotation will appear different, from the Sun. For example, on the day of the January or June solstice, the axis of rotation will appear to coincide with the normal to the orbital plane, from the point of view of the Sun. I'm not sure how to express that concisely in the caption. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed that your concern was that the POV does not precisely lie in the plane of the ecliptic.  Is that not the case?  I would think that it is close enough to say, "viewed from the sun"-- ToET 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is not whether the point of view is precisely in the plane of the ecliptic. I think saying "viewed from the Sun" is close enough. The problem is that if we don't say what day the view is valid on (the day of the March equinox) someone might think the direction of the axis of rotation constantly changes so that the angle between it and the normal to the ecliptic as viewed from the Sun is always about 23 degrees. In other words, the precession of the equnoxes goes through a cycle every year instead of every 23,000 years or so. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I appended "... as viewed from the Sun during the vernal equinox" to the caption. -- ToET 05:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jc3s5h's description is better. The March equinox is vernal only in the Northern Hemisphere. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image clarification/concern 

message: I did a quick calculation of the effect of the earth's rotation on a golf ball that is driven a couple of hundred metres, staying in flight for ten seconds or so. In temperate latitudes, I think the ball will land a few centimetres from the point where it would have landed if the earth were not rotating. If the ball were initially exactly on target to go into the hole, the Coriolis effect would make it miss.
Of course, the effect would be zero at the equator, and in opposite directions in the two hemispheres. This suggests that maybe golfers who have practiced in the Northern Hemisphere might be at a slight disadvantage if they play in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice versa. The effect would be very small, but it might show up in a statistical analysis of a large number of shots.
Has anyone heard of this being done?
DOwenWilliams (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has an effect on ridiculously large cannons. See the Paris Gun, with a range of 120 kilometers.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coriolis effect on golf balls 

message: I just got through rewriting the reference to the equation of time. Although true solar time is related to the equation of time it is not the result of the derivative operator from calculus. Both are dependent on changes in the Earth's orbit. Obliquity vs inclination is a little tricky since they are interrelated. One refers to the inclination of the Earth's orbit but this is relative to the geocentric reference frame and the celestial equator. Similarly, the tilt of the Earth is relative to the fixed stars and varies over time. So for consistency I switched to the orbital term. Note that although the reference to the equation of time refers changes in the obliquity it was left intact. It's just point of view. 
The obliquity has an effect on true solar time and the equation of time since it affects the meridian position of the Sun but the length of the solar day as a whole would not be affected by this. Changes in the speed of the Earth's rotation over long periods of time may have more of an effect. --Jbergquist (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obliquity vs Inclination 

message: This material very much duplicates what is in the article Solar time. And this material also belongs to this other article!  That the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is eccentric and that the plane of this orbit (the ecliptic plane) is inclined to the equatorial plane really has nothing to do with the Earth rotation as such! But precession/nutation belongs here! (and should be extended!)
Stamcose (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First section, "Rotation period" 

message: The previous Wiki article *Length of Day* redirects to this article unconditionally. However, *Length of day* has a second meaning, namely "the length of the bright day as opposed to the dark night." This seems to be covered by the article *Daylight* now. Can someone more familiar with Wiki's formatting templates maybe insert the text "For other uses, see Daylight", please? Gulliveig (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of Day

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time#Too many solar time articles Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many solar time articles

message: The Earth's rotation once in 24 hours is derived from the conversion of natural noon AM/PM cycles to 24 hour AM/PM cycles of which there are 1461 such astronomical events enclosed in 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.The steady and constant progression of 24 hour days substitutes for constant rotation therefore there is no natural external reference for daily rotation as an independent motion no more than there is an external reference for the 24 hour average day,this is verified by all authorities from Christian Huygens to John Harrison,the two main contributors to civil timekeeping and the resolution of location on the planet using the Lat/Long system and the AM/PM cycles.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWHM00sZJc .The entire article on the Earth's rotation is unsuitable for students at any level.Gkell1 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding is gibberish and anyone who edits the article on the basis of the preceding should anticipate adverse reaction. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: False. You know it's false. You are a troll and if you put this trash in an article you will be treated as a vandal. This is your last warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 2+2=4 is a definition.  That the day-length roughly coincides with the rotational period is an observation.  The difference is vital. —Tamfang (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: If the stars are rejected as a reference background (because their apparent motion conflicts with your definition of 'rotation' as one day-night cycle), how do you measure orbital motion?  Or do you define it as that which occurs in one Julian calendar year? —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: In science, unlike theology, a pre-existing theory does not "obliterate" a conflicting observation.  These two observations together demonstrate that Earth's rotation is not the only thing that contributes to the apparent motion of the Sun.  I asked you once before to demonstrate either that you understand this point or that it's false, and all you offer is tautology: 360°÷24=15° and 24×15°=360°, hurrah! —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Elsewhere you make a big deal of the appearances of Sirius.  Is Sirius trustworthy because it's not circumpolar? —Tamfang (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Lat/Long system ,the AM/PM cycles and the Earth's rotation 

message: In the newly-extended lead, I changed "tidal friction" to "tidal effects". As I understand it, friction as the water moves due to the bulge in the oceans caused (mostly) by the Moon's gravity is an essential component to the slowing, because the friction causes the bulge to be dragged slightly ahead of the Moon. The transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon is possible because the bulge is not exactly on the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon. But the slowing is primarily a transfer of momentum and energy from the Earth to the Moon, rather than a dissipation of energy as the word "friction" implies. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidal effects

message: I'm not too happy with the note that siderial is "arguably a misnomer". It asserts that "the dictionary definition of siderial" (as if there were only one dictionary, and only one definition) is the same as stellar. I doubt that's true. At any rate, there is no reference for it. I purpose to remove it after a reasonable interval. Rwflammang (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Siderial 

message: The section now titled Empirical tests contains the sentence "Because of this Coriolis effect, falling bodies veer eastward from the vertical plumb line below their point of release." Is it correct to call this a Coriolis effect or does it have its own name? Does anyone know? The reason I don't think it's Coriolis is that this effect is at a maximum at the equator and disappears at the poles--precisely the reverse of Coriolis. (It is of course minute, which was why it was very hard to observe.)
There's a reference to Riccioli quoting this as an objection to the movement of the earth (objection B6 p70 of the cited text). But as with cannon ball argument (B17 p75) which credits Tycho Brahe, the falling object argument was used by Tycho: "Tycho Brahe maintained that this argument about the falling stone was unanswerable." (see Dreyer p356). I'm inclined to agree with Dreyer 2 pages earlier when he says, re Riciolli (abbreviating slightly) "It would be useless to set forward the arguments from the Scriptures against the movement of the earth in the 16th & 17th C; they are much the same as the Fathers of the Church used 1,000 years earlier in defence of the Babylonian system of the world" (though of course the whole style of argument is Aristotelian not biblical.) Chris55 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's part of the Coriolis effect and has the special name Eötvös effect.−Woodstone (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not it. That results from "eastbound or westbound velocity". This effect is due simply to something falling vertically from a height. Chris55 (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits perfectly in the definition and formulas of the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is perpendicular to the movement and to the Earth's axis and proportional to the sine of the angle between them. So something falling above the equator will veer East because of it. Something falling at higher latitude will veer East as well, but less. At the pole there is no effect. Reversely, something moving East along the equator, will drift upwards. At higher latitude it will veer up at an oblique angle to the surface, but straight from the Earth's axis. Both effects are known under the name Eötvös. −Woodstone (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. I could see there was a \cos \varphi  in the vector but was using the simplified explanation further on in the Coriolis effect article. I was thinking naively in terms of velocities, whereas I see it's actually an acceleration, and therefore ended up with a figure somewhat higher than in the article. Of course, in the 16th/17th century neither Tycho or Riccioli attempted any calculations; I presume Newton could have, though I don't know whether he did−or is that the point of the Hooke story? Chris55 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coriolis? 

message: The technical qualifiers for the erroneous notion that the Earth's rotation can be extracted directly from stellar circumpolar motion demonstrates to a 100% certainty that waking up to one 24 hour cycle is also waking up to another rotation of the planet with no mismatch or divergence between the AM/PM cycle and rotations. Despite the awful Wiki attempt to squeeze the planet's rotation into a 'geology project',without the correlation between one 24 hour cycle and one rotation there is absolutely no mandate to discuss cause and effect between planetary dynamics and terrestrial sciences.It is that serious and this topic requires serious people.Orion216 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And your proposal to improve the article is what exactly? Please feel free to respond when you are sober. Rwflammang (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, it is very conscionable; get over it. What the length of a Julian year might have to do with a measure of the Earth's rotation rate, you leave obscure. I request a reference. Rwflammang (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I have an education. I see no evidence that you have one. Sounds like a brainwashing is more what you have in mind, anyway. Good luck finding a reference for that!  Per WP:FRINGE, your proposed changes will not be made. Rwflammang (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal incompetence 

message: Under Angular speed there is comments with the "tangential speed of Earth's rotation at a point on Earth", but this is only the speed in respect to the poles, not in respect to tangential speed of fixed stellar or solar coordinates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.17.73 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tangential speed of Earth's rotation at a point on Earth 

message: The article claims that the Earth moves from west to east. This sentence is redundant and means nothing. Here is my explanation.
 
Assume we are viewing the Earth on its side, not on either its poles. The north is on top of the circle we see On the most westerly visible point we mark a point X. The article says that the Earth moves counter-clockwise as viewed looking at the north pole. To achieve this, X would move from left to right. This is a case in which the statement in question is correct.
However, even if X moves leftwards, thereby moving out of site, then reappear on the right, it would still have moved from west to east. Therefore, I propose the deletion of the statement in question. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The direction of the rotation 

message: Like some kind of graph with time on the x axis and day length on the y axis. Ideally it would cover the billions of years since the beginning of rotation to the present day, with major epochs marked. I've been scouring the internet for anything more than vagueness like "in the distant past, the Earth spun once every 5/6/8/14/20 hours", with no citation given nor any attempt to quantify just how far in the past we're talking about. Is the slowdown linear? Exponential? Wobbly? I would love to know :(
143.167.146.175 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some data and a nice plot (on page 2) of what you are looking for exist in Williams (2000): "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". (Though the plot only contains accurate points for the last 600Myr and contains any points for the last 2Gyr). However, it is under AGU copyright so it can't presently be uploaded directly to this page.
--Bencbartlett (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would be nice to have concrete data on how fast Earth spun historically 

message: Is there any proof that the Earth rotates? What proof is there that the Earth isn't 100% fixed and everything else rotates around the Earth?
ZhuLien (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any proof the Earth rotates? 

message: The Foucault's Pendulum is a valid proof of the Earth's rotation and, besides, of the direction of this rotation (counterclock wise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern one). --Fev 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A short answer

message: An editor recently added this text to the end of the first paragraph: “ though some researchers claim the slowdown is significantly greater - as much as 4-5 hours over the past 2,500 years”.  The reference for this text is to an article about Jerry Mitrovica in Harvard Magazine which says this: “...ancient eclipse records extending back thousands of years from “Babylonian, Chinese, Arab, and Greek astronomers indicate that the earth’s rotation has slowed about four hours” in two and a half millennia, Mitrovica explains. ”
First, the four hours in the quotation has been rendered as 4--5 hours.  More importantly, I think the editor has misunderstood the quotation.  The claim is not that the day was 20 hours long in 500 BCE, but rather that the accumulated difference between the day as measured by the rotation of the Earth and the modern definition of 24 hours will amount to 4 hours when you get back to 500 BCE. 
The accumulated difference between the rotation of the Earth and a clock which measures time uniformly is called Delta T.  That Wikipedia article mentions that Delta T in 500 BCE is estimated at 4.75 hours.  That might be the source of the editor's modification of 4 (from his source) to 4--5 hours.  However, it renders the whole phrase unnecessary, since there is general agreement about the value of Delta T; it is not just the opinion of “some researchers“.
If there is no objection, I will remove the edit. John Sauter (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In context, the added text seems to claim the day was only about 20 hours (72,000 SI seconds) long in 500 BCE, but the literature, including the 2004 Morrison and Stevenson paper cited in this article, indicate that 4 hours is the accumulated error, also known as ΔT. I went ahead and reverted the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's rotation 2,500 years ago 

message: There is a new study, just published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A by Hohenkerk, Morrisoson Stephenson et al. which has had some coverage in the popular media. Unfortunately, I am unable to pursue this right now, but a simple search of the news under "earth rotation slowing" turns up several reports. I would be like to be able to pick out a nice, clear, correct report which will be accessible to the public to add here.  I would think that this is interesting enough that it deserves more than a single sentence.     TomS TDotO (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, this is a subject that has been researched for a long time. I'm sure the new report will be very thorough, but I think the article in Astronmy & Grophysics is accessible to the average Wiki reader. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be worth a section here - if not worth an indeprendent article. More than just a cryptic sentence.   TomS TDotO (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth rotation is a deep subject, and it can be difficult to understand all the affects and effects. A really good book, which is not, for reason, cited in this article, is that by Munk and MacDonald: . It is an oldish book (slightly older than me!), but it contains lots of interesting material and it is written very clearly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term variation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Earth's rotation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150312003149/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html to http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150312003149/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html to http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/figure3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802032453/http://maia.usno.navy.mil/ to http://maia.usno.navy.mil/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At IERS/EOC in "INTERACTIVE PLOT FOR EOP C04" it is clear in June-July curve is inclining up. This inclination is first derivative of Earth's velocity, that is ac/de-celeration, and incline up means acceleration. In Septemper there is incline down, that means deceleration. Acceleration is greater than famous one in 1998.
Indeed high velocity due to 1998 acceleration lasted about 5 years, so contributed much to delay of 2005 leap second. While the one due to this summer's acceleration lasted two months only, so contributed very little to delay of next leap second. Georges T. (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's acceleration in June-July 2017, difference from 1998 acceleration. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Earth's rotation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003083543/http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html to http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's circumference which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Does anyone have the mph for Earth's rotation speed?--Wyn.junior (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miles per hour 

message: According to this section, a stellar day is a revolution relative to the ICRS, which uses the vernal equinox as reference point. This is in line with the german W. But the section continues by stating that the sidereal day is (also) relative to the vernal equinox. Do I overlook something? Madyno (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Sidereal day is relative to the vernal equinox. Stellar day is relative to the ICRS.
I'm not convinced you're right. Sidereal quite general refers to the "fixed" stars. Other sources:
;Encyclopedia Britannica
The sidereal day is the time required for the Earth to rotate once relative to the background of the stars—i.e., the time between two observed passages of a star over the same meridian of longitude.
;oxford
The time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation on its axis such that a particular point on the surface returns to its former position in relation to the position of the fixed stars. The sidereal day, of 23 hours 56 minutes and 3.93 seconds, is 3 minutes 50 seconds shorter than the mean solar day, because the movement of the Earth in its solar orbit is imposed on its rotational motion.
;Earthsky
A sidereal day measures the rotation of Earth relative to the stars rather than the sun.  It helps astronomers keep time and know where to point their telescopes without worrying about where Earth is in its orbit.
;https://sceweb.sce.uhcl.edu/helm/WEB-Positional%20Astronomy/Tutorial/Sidereal%20Time/Sidereal%20Time.html
We define one rotation of Earth as one sidereal day,
measured as the time between two successive meridian passages of the same star.
Madyno (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellar and sidereal day 

message: :
Unfortunately this is the only mention (in this article) of the phenom, and invites questions, like: what happened to 23:56?  If the solar day is meant, isn't it less than 24h for half the year?  Needs rewording by someone who knows more. —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the speedup 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's orbit which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The main page for this topic (Earth's Rotation) clearly states that the direction of the Earth's rotation is 
* counterclockwise *.  Yet in the graphic the earth orb is spinning clockwise. Maybe someone could edit/change this? Thanks for listening to my opinion. Have A Healthy, Prosperous Day! - - -robert
Robhwill (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation: Directional Error?