Tony Finch wrote:
What do you mean by "stabilized" here? Atomic time is the basis of
our most stable time scales. I don't think perturbing a timescale to
follow the erratic slow-down of the earth can reasonably be called
"stabilizing" it.
Civil timekeeping (the underlying global timescale
In message , Tony Fi
nch writes:
>On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Rob Seaman wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, permitting a long delay between events - or rather,
>> between scheduling opportunities for events - risks losing the corporate
>> knowledge to handle the events properly.
>
>The good thing about timezo
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> On the other hand, permitting a long delay between events - or rather,
> between scheduling opportunities for events - risks losing the corporate
> knowledge to handle the events properly.
The good thing about timezones is the code to implement them and al
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> Alternately, by relying on shifting timezones, there would be no
> underlying stabilized civil timescale permitting commonsense timekeeping
> inferences by humans.
What do you mean by "stabilized" here? Atomic time is the basis of our
most stable time scal
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Adi Stav wrote:
>
> Right. Well, both my memory of the archives and M. Warner Losh's summary
> have uses that need to be aware of UT (actually, I think local sidereal
> time, or ET in some cases, so that have to perform conversions either
> way).
No-one uses ET any more. It has
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Adi Stav wrote:
>
> Another suggestion in the same vain: standardize all the time zones of
> the world to two specific dates for starting and ending DST (if they use
> it). Add leap seconds at one of those dates only.
That would require the period of DST to be exactly half the
M. Warner Losh wrote:
I don't think anybody can make any meaningful predictions out 7k
years.
The Sun will still shine. The Earth will still spin. Lunar tides
will continue their billion year trend. A solar second will be
incrementally a bit longer yet than an SI second.
If humans st
In message: <49646f64.11204.11917...@dan.tobias.name>
"Daniel R. Tobias" writes:
: On 6 Jan 2009 at 10:12, Tony Finch wrote:
:
: > Note that there's no need for global co-ordination. Each country (or
: > county) can change when it is convenient for them. The effect would
: > probably
Tom Van Baak wrote:
why in your opinion, are leap seconds OK but leap tenth-seconds, or
leap minutes, or leap hours not OK? Each of these preserve, to one
degree or another, the notion of stationary wrt solar time.
I'll refrain from references to current practice. We often get
tangled i
Adi Stav wrote:
But what do you think about my suggestion of phasing the time standard
every few centuries when the standard's DUT reaches 30 minutes?
Won't it make leap hours workable?
I suspect that none of the factions will welcome repeated
redefinitions of a fundamental standard.
Rob
On 6 Jan 2009 at 10:12, Tony Finch wrote:
> Note that there's no need for global co-ordination. Each country (or
> county) can change when it is convenient for them. The effect would
> probably be a shifting of timezone boundaries in lumps and bumps that
> averages out to the overall DUT1 drift.
Rob Seaman said:
> The leap occurs at midnight UTC on 30 June or 31 December. These
> dates apply west of Greenwich, e.g., we saw the leap second in Tucson
> at 5 pm on New Years Eve. East of Greenwich it is already the morning
> of 1 July or 1 January when the leap second occurs.
I know w
12 matches
Mail list logo
