Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-16 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Stephen Colebourne said: Local time * definition: local-time - the time-scale local to a region of the Earth * definition: offset - the duration that local-time differs from the locally recognised legal standard time-scale Sorry, that's nonsense. By definition, that offset is always zero,

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-03 Thread Tony Finch
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Gerard Ashton wrote: The point below should be * definition: UTC-1972-day - a duration of 86399, 86400, or 86401 seconds. On 2/2/2011 8:50 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: * definition: UTC-1972-day - a duration either 86400 SI-seconds or 86401 SI-seconds long To be

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-03 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Update including some comments sent earlier, and new entries on UTC and local-time: A star is used for a new or amended line. General: - these points of consensus exist to aid the understanding of leap seconds not time in general - the terms seconds, minutes, hours and days are overloaded -

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-03 Thread michael.deckers
On 2011-02-04 00:32, Stephen Colebourne proposed the following description: - definition: TAI-2008-second - the same as SI-second for the purposes of this discussion The TAI time scale uses the SI second alright, but it is the value of the SI second as realized on the rotating

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-02 Thread Gerard Ashton
The point below should be * definition: UTC-1972-day - a duration of 86399, 86400, or 86401 seconds. On 2/2/2011 8:50 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: * definition: UTC-1972-day - a duration either 86400 SI-seconds or 86401 SI-seconds long ___ LEAPSECS

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-02 Thread Tim Shepard
* definition: UTC-1972-day - a duration either 86400 SI-seconds or 86401 SI-seconds long or 85999 * leap-seconds are added to UTC-1972 with the aim of keeping UT1 and UTC no more than 0.9 SI-seconds apart Leap seconds may be inserted or deleted, though so far there have only been

Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus building 2

2011-02-02 Thread Warner Losh
On 02/02/2011 18:50, Stephen Colebourne wrote: OK, so we've got a little bogged down in redefining what appear to be well defined things, and whether a list like this should define things anyway. I'll give it one more go, but sadly I don't have the patience of Job if others don't also want