On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote: >> On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: >>> On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote: >>>> On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is >>>>> what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references. >>>>> This is our "universe". >>>>> >>>> >>>> The "universe" is a little larger than that for the astronomers. "Earth >>>> time" would have made more sense. >>> >>> You are missing my point, the word "universe" have different meanings, >>> and when originally used for UTC it was used to mean a coordinated >>> time for that "lump of orbital debris" and not for the "Universe". >>> Thus, using a particular interpretation of the word as an argument is >>> not very fruitful. It is just not very suitable choice of words, at >>> least in english. >>> >>> >> Both terms, "universal" and "coordinated", are laden with historical >> connotations. >> >> If you somehow refine the description of UTC I think you'd better rename >> it. > > There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the concept. > > If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The > concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but > naturally they are free to contribute to the proliferation of time-scales by > doing yet another one.
Proleptic UTC isn't really UTC, since it is a pure elapsed time in the Proleptic phase. It ceases to be an approximation of UT, UT1 or UT2 in any meaningful way. But it is a damn convenient way to define things.... Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
