You *must* stop sending messages to the newsgroup that consist of nothing but a quote from someone else. If you want to keep quotes send them to yourself. This is *not* your personal message archive. Noone is interested in what you think is important.
Danny Quadibloc wrote: > Rob van der Putten wrote: >> 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. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
