26-June-2003, 10:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 47
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilopi
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidnakov
Talking of "blatently", check this out from the straightdope.com : "We find that similarity of the degree 2 Love number inferred at a nine-day period to that at seismic frequencies, combined with the significant amount of relaxation at the Chandler period, together imply that Q models operating within the seismic band cannot extend all the way to long tidal periods." Probable translation: "I don't know."
|
Be careful with your quotes, especially when you don't provide a link to the webpage. Luckily, I'm familiar with that particular Straight Dope column--I'm the one who wrote in asking the question. That entire thing should be in quotes, as the Straight Dope was quoting someone else:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Straight Dope
Kilopi, I did provide the source of the quote end quotation marks and some of the facts I might use are not necesserely from the web. I do not have any interest to mislead anyone, but when some one throws some "2 Love" numbers and "Q models" thay are not sharing their insight and coperhantion of the fenomenon, just riding high.
"We find that similarity of the degree 2 Love number inferred at a nine-day period to that at seismic frequencies, combined with the significant amount of relaxation at the Chandler period, together imply that Q models operating within the seismic band cannot extend all the way to long tidal periods." Probable translation: "I don't know."
|
|
|