On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > > As we have seen there are a lot of intricate > >details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way > >to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical > >GMT doesn't exist. > > Interesting argument. I disagree with your central point: I don't > think an official realisation of GMT is required in order for GMT to > meaningfully exist.
Note that in the above I'm talking about astronomical GMT. There is an official realisation of legal GMT, and it is UTC. If you create a new astronomical timescale it would be wrong to claim it is GMT. GMT(Zefram) is probably OK though :-) > Making a clear distinction between ideal and realisation smells like > modern behaviour; considering the many different meanings of "GMT" that > have already been identified, I would not be surprised at it being > irretrievably ambiguous in this respect. Yes, definitely. I'm stretching when I claim that the practical realities of time in the UK are enough to unambiguously define GMT == UTC (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion). > Does anyone have relevant historical documentation on the philosophical > definition of GMT? This is brief and sketchy: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/explore/astronomy-and-time/astronomy-facts/history/the-longitude-of-greenwich Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
