On 2014-08-20 10:23 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Brooks Harris <bro...@edlmax.com> wrote:
Since the beginning of civilization society has pursued the goal of perfect
timekeeping. UTC is one of the great intellectual achievements of mankind.
The difficulties with Leap Seconds are rooted in computer standards and
implementations, not theory. We must strive to advance the state of the art,
not abandon 4500 years of timekeeping history just because its difficult.
Ceaser didn't quit. Pope Gregory didn't quit. Harrison didn't quit. Newcomb
didn't quit.
"Dropping Leap Seconds" is something like burning great libraries.
Not sure I buy this hyperbole.
That's the fun of it!
Leap seconds suffer from many minor issues that are only going to increase as
we get more and more connected.
That's where an effort to consolidate the specifications and remove the
flaws in computer standards could lead to uniform implementations.
The stubborn refusal for any changes in the current implementation has me
thinking of them as less than great libraries, and more as pebbles in my shoes.
I see the "pebbles in my shoes" as the flaws in standards and
implementations. They are sharp and painful, to be sure, but abandoning
Leap Seconds dismisses the history of timekeeping and, by itself, won't
eliminate the pain anyway - you'll still need to reform the computer
standards. Reform them to support Leap Seconds and we've advanced the
state of the art rather than returning to flat land.
There are many better ways to implement them, and "perfect timekeeping" always begs the
question of "perfect for whom." De we align them with the day or the year? If we pick one
over the other, the other gets out of sync.
The day, as has always been the traditional goal. That's why leap years
and UTC with Leap Seconds in the first place, right?
-Brooks
Warner
-Brooks
On 2014-08-20 04:02 PM, Preben Nørager wrote:
OMG its 290091200278565000. With THAT my proposal still stands :-)
2014-08-20 21:48 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <kei...@cs.stanford.edu>:
Check that multiplication... :-)
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Preben Nørager <samp5...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can not edit the numbers in my initial post, but I can do it here, and
with that my proposel still stands: Drop the leap second, and continue UTC
without leap
seconds, so that 1 mean solar year is defined as the
duration of 290091175979732 [31556925,9747x9192631770] periods of
radiation in the caesium atom
2014-08-20 16:43 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <kei...@mit.edu>:
To be a pedant [but if you can't be one on the leapsecs mailing
list...], the SI second is *9192631770* periods of the radiation etc.
Your figure is high by 1000.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Preben Nørager <samp5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In the discussion about whether or not to drop the leap second, I think
it
is not a question about solar time or not solar time. It is in other
words
not a question about either solar time or atomic time.
If we drop the leap second it will be in favour of another timescale,
which
uses only atomic clocks to tell the time, but the time in that other
timescale will still be based upon a kind of solar time.
About a hundred years ago it was decided, that the mean solar year, and
not
the mean solar day, should be the unit of international time.
In 1960 the second was defined as 1/31556925,9747 of the mean solar
year,
and in 1967 the second was redefined [equally in length to the
previously
defined second] as the duration of 9192632770 periods of radiation.
When the second was defined in 1960 it was defined as a fraction of the
so-called tropical year. That was a mistake of wording. The tropical
year is
a measurement of the solar longitude on the ecliptic, but the
international
definition of the second is not based upon measurement of the solar
longitude on the ecliptic.
The definition of the second is based upon Newcomb's theory of the solar
system, and in that theory it is the barycenter of the solar system, and
not
the center of the sun, which defines the length of the solar year.
The length of the solar year, according to Newcomb's theory, is the time
for
the longitude of the barycenter of the solar system to increase 360
decrees.
The solar year, thus defined, can be measured either for one year, or
for an
average of years.
But the 1960 and the 1967 definition of the second can also be used as
an
international definition of the mean solar year.
I think we should drop the leap second, and continue UTC without leap
seconds as TI [International Time], so that 1 mean solar year is the
duration of 290091231835491000 [31556925,9747x9192632770] periods of
radiation in the caesium atom.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
