On Thu 2017-01-12T12:57:55 -0500, John Sauter hath writ:
> Keep in mind that the IERS may have
> improved their algorithm since 1972, so we may be looking at a moving
> target.
Yes. Everything is entirely different.
Things that have changed and continue to change include
sites and organizations
IERS Technical Note No. 36
IERS Conventions (2010)
ftp://tai.bipm.org/iers/conv2010/tn36.pdf
-Brooks
On 2017-01-12 01:08 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2017-01-12 12:18 PM, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11,
On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 09:18 -0800, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote:
> It might also be helpful if we understood better how these models are
> used to decide when to announce leap seconds. I don't know currently
> what criteria the IERS uses, except the overall parameters of keeping
> >
On 2017-01-12 12:18 PM, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Zefram wrote:
It would be nice to have more sophisticated projections from IERS more
than a year ahead. It would
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Zefram wrote:
>> It would be nice to have more sophisticated projections from IERS more
>> than a year ahead. It would particularly help in evaluating the proposals
>> that
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Preben Nrager said:
>> If you don't care about Christ, and the church, I can understand why you
>> treat all timescales alike. But if you really care about the fundamental
>> timescale of science and society, then I
Preben Nrager said:
> If you don't care about Christ, and the church, I can understand why you
> treat all timescales alike. But if you really care about the fundamental
> timescale of science and society, then I don't see how you can ignore the
> time of the incarnation.
If you really want the
This is getting pretty far afield from the question of Coordinated Universal
Time or leap seconds. Perhaps there is a more appropriate mailing list for such
discussions?
Rob Seaman
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
—
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Preben Nørager
Zefram wrote:
"The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question, and (as I noted)
historians are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer. ISO 8601 takes no
position on that question. .. If you get any more specific than he
[Dionysius Exiguus] did, for example if you state that Jesus was born