Hi there
Quadibloc wrote: > Yes, this is quite right. However, while the second is no longer > defined in terms of a fraction of the tropical year in 1900, the > Earth's rotation still factors in to this in a more subtle way. > > You see, the Earth is in *motion*. And the SI second is defined (in > practice, within the framework of UTC) as so many vibrations of a > cesium atom...*sitting on the Earth*. So what was being referred to in > what you are quoting is _not_ time being defined in terms of the > Earth's motion, instead of being atomic time (the poster works for > NIST, and has authored several papers on the atomic time scale) but > the fact that our current time scale doesn't include *relativistic > corrections* for the Earth's motion. I suppose one would have to apply a correction for the movement of the solar system through the galaxy as well. And the movement of our galaxy through the universe. Regards, Rob -- Nothing is more surreal then reality _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
