The Days are Getting Longer
"A day is getting longer, but not enough to make a difference"
What a day looks like a Billion years ago?
If you ever think the days are becoming shorter and shorter, then congratulations you are right. Days are not long enough to done every work on time. Sometimes it is very frustrating but many times it proves a blessing. We work from dawn to dusk and just waited for the night to take some rest. We should be grateful for this change. It was told that the day was a full five hours and fifteen minutes shorter before billions of years ago. Before the life on Earth, there were a lot of complexities that was spread around the Globe.
Contribution of Scientists:
Scientist proves this theory by a lot of effort. They used heavy machinery and latest technology along with the combination of old calculation that they collected from different observations. Scientist told that the geochemical signatures that were buries under the surface of the ancient rock explains that around 1.4 billion years ago the Earth completes its rotation around its own axis about every 18 hours and 41 minutes. That is such a less time according to the modern one. Just imagine the day end in no time. If you live at that time, what you would do? No doubt we fed up by less time and end up doing less work. It creates frustration and disturbs mental health as well.
18 hours and 41 minutes, these numbers represents that, on average, the length of the Earth changes and increases, which seems unbelievable. So, what the reason behind this drastic change and what made the Earth to extends the time of its rotations along the axis. Before the explanation of the answer, we all know that the Earth has its Moon that is revolve around the Earth. So, this may be the one of those reasons behind the change. Let’s discuss;
Reasons behind the change of time:
Two scientists named “Stephen Meyers and Alberto Malinverno” explain the answer. They told that as the Earth rotation gradually slow down, the Moon started moving away from the Earth. It was estimated that the moon has been drifted up to many thousands kilometers from the Earth and this drifting is never stop. Meyers and Malinvern challenged themselves to recreate those changes between the moon and the Earth. They wanted to confirm the drastic change in the rotations of the Earth. Are these observations are true or not? But we know that it is not easy as it seems. Earth and Moon are so heavy bodies containing mass of billions of tons. It is very hard to work on such heavy masses and figure out the reliable change.
Statement of Meyers and Malinvern:
In an interview Meyers said that “I am interesting to recreate these cycles because we know that these are the only reliable sources to observe the change in the length of the day. These cycles crealy evaluate the history of our planets and the every object present in the Universe. He further added that these cycles act as a beneficial navigation tool for the identification of Geological history of the planets”.
It was also told that, the observations about moon moving far away from the Earth are totally baseless. It is not possible for the moon to retreat from the Earth due to large gravitational pull of the Earth towards moon. May be, in near future we expect that the moon change its directions or there is an increase in the distance of the moon but to reach a sudden conclusion is totally wrong. Let see what scientist discover next about the Earth history.
About the Creator
Fatima Jamil
In a world where you can be anyone, be yourself.
Keep reading
More stories from Fatima Jamil and writers in Earth and other communities.
Earth is Not Flat, but it's not Perfectly Round Either
Introduction: We used to see countless pictures of the Earth, and come to know that the Earth is round, a round shaped ball called “Blue Marble”. But the reality is more shocking than usual. All our expectations come to an end when we learned that the Earth is not perfectly round. But that doesn’t means that the Earth is flat. This is completely a false prediction. From early ages, before the arrival of Columbus and sailed the blue ocean, many Greek philosophers like Aristotle and other predicted that the Earth is rounds. And even after many times this theory is considered a true one. Actually, they predict about shaped based on their observations. One of their major observations was that the departing ship, when it goes far away in the Ocean, it appears like a sinking one and become smaller. Like the ship moves around the edge of a circle and disappears in a sudden time.
By Fatima Jamil3 years ago in Earth
Whose Goat Is This?
Pir Sahib was startled when he saw a goat roaming freely in the courtyard of his house. Stroking its neck, he spoke to himself, wondering where the goat had come from and why it seemed so fearless, as if it belonged there. The house door was open, which explained how the goat had wandered inside.
By Sudais Zakwan5 days ago in Earth
Trade an Alliance for an Island? That’s a Bad Deal
In global politics, deals are often complex, involving trade-offs between economic benefits, security, and diplomacy. But some propositions are so controversial that they make analysts, policymakers, and citizens alike shake their heads. One such idea that has sparked debate is the notion of trading a military or political alliance for control over a strategic island. While it may seem tempting on the surface — after all, islands can provide resources, ports, or strategic leverage — experts warn that the costs almost always outweigh the benefits. Whether in the context of historical disputes or contemporary geopolitical maneuvers, the principle is clear: sacrificing alliances for short-term territorial gain is a recipe for long-term instability. The Strategic Value of Islands Islands have long held outsized importance in global strategy. Their locations can control shipping lanes, host military bases, or serve as hubs for surveillance and trade. Examples abound: Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific, serves as a crucial military outpost. Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, have sparked wars over sovereignty. Taiwan, an island nation, sits at the center of a high-stakes geopolitical standoff. It’s no wonder that countries often covet islands. But there’s a critical question: does gaining an island justify undermining the alliances that guarantee your security? Alliances Are Hard to Replace Alliances are built on trust, shared interests, and mutual defense commitments. They are far more difficult to establish than an island is to claim. Trading an alliance for territorial gain may offer immediate leverage or prestige, but the risks are profound: Loss of Credibility – Nations that abandon allies for short-term gain quickly earn reputations as unreliable partners. Future negotiations become harder, as other countries question whether agreements will be honored. Security Gaps – Alliances often provide defense guarantees, intelligence sharing, and logistical support. Sacrificing them leaves a country vulnerable to external threats, particularly from rivals who may exploit the weakened network. Economic Costs – Alliances often underpin trade, investment, and joint infrastructure projects. Breaking them can lead to sanctions, lost markets, or reduced foreign investment. The lesson: while an island may offer strategic positioning, the network of alliances it might cost is far more valuable in the long run. Historical Lessons History provides cautionary tales. Consider these examples: World War II: Several countries prioritized short-term territorial gains over alliances, leading to devastating consequences. Nazi Germany initially signed non-aggression pacts with smaller neighbors, only to later invade them. The temporary territorial gains could not compensate for the loss of trust and the eventual collapse of strategic alliances. Cold War-era negotiations: Smaller countries were frequently courted with promises of land or aid in exchange for switching allegiances. Those who accepted often found themselves isolated once the larger powers shifted focus. Even today, analysts warn against decisions that sacrifice alliances for geographic gains, emphasizing that political isolation often outweighs any tactical advantage an island might provide. Modern Geopolitical Risks In today’s interconnected world, the stakes are even higher. Global powers rely on alliances for cybersecurity, intelligence sharing, and coordinated responses to crises. Trading away alliances for an island could: Increase regional instability, as neighboring states perceive opportunism and may respond aggressively. Undermine defense networks, reducing the effectiveness of coordinated military strategies. Trigger economic retaliation, such as sanctions, reduced foreign investment, or trade barriers. For example, in East Asia, speculation over islands in the South China Sea has shown that territorial claims can inflame tensions, disrupt shipping, and strain alliances. The international community’s response demonstrates that control over land rarely outweighs the benefits of strong regional partnerships. The Temptation of Short-Term Gains It’s easy to understand why some leaders might be tempted by the idea of trading alliances for islands. Islands offer tangible assets: ports, mineral resources, tourism opportunities, and symbolic prestige. In contrast, alliances are intangible, slow to show benefits, and require ongoing maintenance. But experts caution that these short-term gains are deceptive. Islands can become expensive liabilities, requiring military defense, infrastructure investment, and diplomatic management. Without the backing of reliable allies, these responsibilities can quickly overwhelm a nation’s capacity. Why Alliances Are the Better Investment Alliances, on the other hand, provide a foundation for long-term stability and prosperity. They: Strengthen deterrence against aggression. Enable resource sharing, from intelligence to humanitarian aid. Facilitate trade and economic integration. Enhance global influence, since countries with strong alliances carry more weight in negotiations. In short, while an island may give the appearance of strength, alliances provide real, multifaceted security. Nations that value lasting influence and resilience prioritize alliances over short-term territorial gains. Conclusion: Islands Are Not Worth Alliances In geopolitics, the lure of a small piece of land can be seductive. But as history and modern strategy show, alliances are the true currency of international power. Trading an alliance for an island may offer temporary prestige or leverage, but the long-term costs — security risks, economic consequences, and loss of credibility — are rarely worth it. Leaders seeking strategic advantage should remember that alliances, trust, and collaboration often outweigh any single piece of territory, no matter how strategically located or resource-rich. In the end, islands may be impressive on maps, but alliances shape the world in lasting, meaningful ways.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
One Unchecked Box
"Republished" because it was the only way to add the embed for the newly recorded audio version of this story due to the Top Story badge. Plus it serves as a nice, informal announcement of the podcast's revival for another season (go subscribe!):
By Stephen A. Roddewigabout 18 hours ago in Fiction
Comments (1)
"The Days are Getting Longer" is a captivating article that explores the fascinating phenomenon of lengthening days. With clear and concise explanations, the author takes us on a journey through the scientific reasons behind this occurrence, shedding light on Earth's axial tilt and its impact on our planet's seasons.