Mark Calabretta scripsit:
> If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I
> challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not
> addressed by the leap hour proposal.
I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
of the ALHP anyh
On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>> The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given
>> that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone
>> care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what wi
On Fri 2006/01/13 16:45:33 -, Michael Deckers wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
> Right, UTC timestamps are ambiguous (in the sense that the
... would have been ambiguous ...
> corresponding TAI value is not known) in the vicinity of
> positive leap seconds, and the not
On Fri 2006/01/13 07:31:50 -0800, Tom Van Baak wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>- You can design it with 61 seconds around the circle
> and jump over number 60 (go from 59 to 00) every
> minute except for when a positive leap second occurs.
> Also kind of weird, but the furthe
On Fri 2006/01/13 11:17:52 -, Michael Deckers wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
> I must get TAI, up to an integration constant. This is correct.
> The integral of d( UTC ) is TAI (up to an integration constant),
> but this integral is UTC only where UTC is a continuous f
On Fri 2006/01/13 11:45:13 -, Ed Davies wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>If you don't count the leap seconds then the good news is that
>days are all 86 400 seconds long but the bad news is that the
>real is undefined during the leap second and there's a
>discontinuity (or ra
On Fri 2006/01/13 14:20:21 -, Michael Deckers wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
> Then why can the IERS express UTC in the MJD notation?
Good point. The only such usage I am aware of is in IERS Bulletin A
where the MJD column is given without saying even whether it's UTC, T
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> I haven't been able to decipher what the humor is meant to be here -
> will gladly admit that this is likely a failure on my part. I won't
> ask you to explain the joke, but rather I suspect you had a more
> basic point you were seeking to make. Is there some reason that
>
On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Richard Langley wrote:
The problem existed for only 2-1/2 minutes, not hours.
Thanks for the clarification.
Might be coincidental with the leap second but I've not noticed
this problem at other times.
Would be a significant coincidence. Any simple explanation
