Talk:Clock of the Long Now

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara ✉ 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Is this original material? It seems to be trivially reworded from this article. Please remember that we cannot accept contributions that can't be licensed under the GFDL; if the original article is public domain, or if the submitter was in fact the copyright holder, please let us know, otherwise the page will have to be deleted. --Brion 05:55 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I wrote to the Rosetta Project around December 02, to invite them to write an article on their project. They submitted a copy of their site's info text- I had mentioned the GDFL, so presumably they know what they are doing. Since they are also a part of the Long Now project, maybe the same person contributed about the clock- it's a fair assssumption. --Tarquin 20:38 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Fair assumptions don't put lawyers in court. --Maru (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarity

"gears necessarily require a ratio relationship between the timing source and the display."

I have a general idea, but I'm not sure exactly what this means. Could someone more mechanically minded rephrase or expand it? Tlogmer 08:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence refers to the fact that the ratio between the rate of rotation of two shafts connected by engaged gears is determined by the ratio of the number of teeth in each gear. The number of teeth in a gear is an integer. Theoretically the number of teeth on each gear could be any arbitrary number and therefore any ratio between the rates of rotation of the two shafts is possible. However, it would be physically difficult to build gears with enough teeth to obtain ratios with small fractional components.

I don't know how to convey the above idea in the few words appropriate to cover the topic in the article. My thought is that the current wording is probably OK, albeit not specific enough to inform a person not familiar with gears about the issue. --Davefoc (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Flawed clock

Um, doesn't the millennium occur on the 31st of Dec of year 2000, 3000, etc? Whoops! See 3rd millennium. His clock is already off a full year. Falcanary 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Prototype. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Stonehenge

How do we know stonehenge wasnt built to be a clock? The whole idea is stupid, they probably wouldn't even recognise it as a clock in 10000 years. Crazy loon. Falcanary 18.35, 31 August 2138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.173.76 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the little digit thingy on the front changes every day, and that the stars on the dial rotate suspiciously like the stars in the sky, MAY be a SLIGHT tip-off to the people of the future that this is a clock. -173.73.118.78 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anathem

FYI, Anathem is a new novel from Neil Stephenson that features an otherworldly version of this clock as a principle setting for the action. linas (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Basic Information is Needed

Would like to see a section with the basic information about the clock.

Dimensions. Timetable for completion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.193.94 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clock of the Long Now. 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/20051103034837/http://seminars.longnow.org:80/ to http://seminars.longnow.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple more See Also links ?

I think the following two wiki pages could be added to the See Also section.
Pitch drop experiment
Oxford Electric Bell
Idyllic press (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources?

many of the source links point to the long now foundation's own website. do those count as primary sources and thus shouldn't be used? Cliff (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

10,000 years from now?

The 10,000-year clock, if still working, would need to have survived the global thermonuclear war that would have annihilated most of humans from the planet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.202.34 (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Joke

Someone seems to have added a few jokes to the end of the externally calibrated list. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Major rewrite

The vast majority of this article is WP:CRYSTAL and primarily sourced. I propose to delete most of it and replace with secondary source info from here:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a31156395/jeff-bezos-clock-long-now-mountain/

Any objections? CT55555 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)