William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2015-01-19, fm@fr.invalid <fm@fr.invalid> wrote: >> William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-01-19, Mike S <mi...@flatsurface.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/18/2015 6:04 PM, William Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>> UTC always has 86400 seconds per year. >>>> >>>> You clearly don't understand how leap seconds work. You're embarrassing >>>> yourself now. When there's a leap second, there are 86401 SI seconds in >>> >>> I AM clearly embarrasing myself, since 86400 is the number of seconds >>> per SAY not year. Slight difference! >>> >>> Of course there are 86401 seconds in a day including a leap second. But >>> UTC only sees 86400. It forgets about one of them. >> >> I am not sure what you mean by "sees", but I cant figure a meaning >> that would be compatible with the fact that UTC clearly identifies >> 86401 seconds on the day the leap second occurs. > > If you ask utc how many seconds there are between now, and exactly three > days ago, it ansers 3*86400 even if one of those days had a leap second. > Yes of course that leap second occurs on the day, but utc forgets that > it did.
You are constantly confusing the officially defined UTC time with the implementation in computer operating systems "seconds since 1-1-1970 UTC". That implementation neglects the presence of leap seconds. Therefore it has to introduce discontinuity. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions