On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Thu 2014-01-16T09:58:52 -0800, Eric Fort hath writ:
>> Maybe it's time for the minders
>> of astronomical periodicity and the minders of atomic periodicity to
>> simply agree to disagree about what "time&quo
might there be a bit more simplicity added to this discussion. It
would seem to me that what is and is not a "clock" is not and should
not be the question. A clock tells time, whatever that is. Planetary
rotation, Planetary orbit, A pendulum, A quartz crystal, or a cesium
beam - none of thes
All of the above look pretty good to me, though a bit of peer review by
this group (many being experts in the field) could probably make them even
better.
Eric
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Eric Fort wrote:
> Somewhat depends upon the intended audience but the following items
> come t
Somewhat depends upon the intended audience but the following items
come to mind and I'll finish with 2 references from which to pick
more. The props chosen might also depend somewhat at to what "the
presented philosophy of what time is" is.
Here's a few things that come to mind:
Various calenda
Thought a link may be useful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/science/to-keep-or-kill-lowly-leap-second-focus-of-world-debate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=a%20second%20here%20a%20second%20there&st=cse
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/19/nytfron
