On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 07:58 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:17 AM, John Sauter <John_Sauter@systemeyesc > omputerstore.com> wrote: > > I have proposed a schedule of leap seconds prior to 1972 based on > > the > > Earth's rotation rate, which was deduced from ancient observations > > of > > the Sun and Moon. The complete paper is available on my web site, > > at > > > > https://www.systemeyescomputerstore.com/proleptic_UTC.pdf. > > > > I would be grateful for any criticism, particularly any suggestions > > for > > improving the paper. It is my goal to publish this paper on > > arXiv.org, > > perhaps in the astro-ph section. > > > > Here is the abstract: > > > > Using ancient observations of the Sun and Moon, construct a time > > scale > > using the modern definition of Coordinated Universal Time to cover > > the > > past 3,000 years. Use the 20th century portion of that time scale > > to > > construct a table of leap seconds from 1900 through 1971 for NTP. > I both love and hate this. > > I love it because the rules are clear and mechanical. This means > that it can be implemented relatively easily in code. I'd prefer > simpler > rules, but it's a lot better than the 'surprise' model we have today. > It > also show just how crazy leap seconds are given the crazy number > of leap seconds needed (see years -1000's for example). > > I hate it because nobody did it. It's a complete artificial construct > that's different from modern UTC. Modern UTC isn't so neat. There's > ambiguity with when a leap second could occur. Do you schedule > an early leap second when DUT1 is just a niggle over a positive > second keeping DUT1 in the range -.9 to .1 mostly. Or do you wait > 6 months and schedule it when DUT1 is approaching .5 to keep > DUT1 in the range -.5 to .5. Or do you wait even longer until it's > almost up to +.9 and thus tend to be -.1 to .9. The Proleptic UTC > in this paper has none of this complexity. > > It is quite interesting, though. I didn't think I'd find anything I'd > like > about it at all, but after reading it, this does seem to take all the > crazy into what an ancient UTC would look like. > > If it were me, I'd not worry about the license. If you are publishing > it in arXiv.org, you'll already establish priority. The license seems > to be a needless complication and barrier to adoption in this case. > But that's just me.... > > Warner
Thank you, Warner. With UTC, there is an authority which decides when we will have a leap second. To project UTC back in time, we need a similar authority, and I nominated myself for that role. The license is there to reassure anyone thinking about building on the work that I will not complain about copyright infringement. I understand it is one of the licenses that asXiv.org accepts. Notice that I included the source LaTeX file. John Sauter (john_sau...@systemeyescomputerstore.com) -- PGP fingerprint = E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603 49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
