Hi
Eight years is an eternity in internet time. If you look at the number of “IoT”
gizmos they
think will be fielded, its a massive number of autonomous systems. To a great
extent
they are even more crazy to update than desktop or rack mount systems.
By 2020, this whole issue may be … errr ….
http://inkushi.freeshell.org/screenshot-1351958570177.png
^See? Hence my filing a bug report a few hours ago.
On 11/3/2012 8:54 PM, Brent Gordon wrote:
> Reykjavík, Iceland is UTC+0 without summer time changes.
>
> Brent
>
> On 11/3/2012 9:55 AM, Sarah White wrote:
>> P.S. Seems strange that t
Reykjavík, Iceland is UTC+0 without summer time changes.
Brent
On 11/3/2012 9:55 AM, Sarah White wrote:
P.S. Seems strange that the only two options for a UTC+0 timezone are
"London, Dublin" or "Casablanca" (neither of which are year-round UTC)
... I'll try to remember to point this out to the
The counter of the frequency is subject to phase shift caused by the
speed of light and the distance to the measured source. Each counter
must be given an initial value of time in order to be called a clock.
Hi Bill,
When not in motion it's easy to synchronize remote clocks --
you just send pul
The question has both a frequency and a counter part, as does any
clock.
The frequency shift with gravity has been nicely addressed by tvb
and others.
The counter of the frequency is subject to phase shift caused by the
speed of light and the distance to the measured source. Each counter
must be
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
In other words, how did they solve the conflict where on one hand we'd all
expect two "perfect" clocks to "tick" at the same time but wether they do
depends on the location of the observer?
--
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, Califo
On 30/08/11 09:40, Chris Albertson wrote:
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
They haven't.
In other words, how did they solve the conflict where on one hand we'd all
expect two "perfect" clocks to "tick" at the same time but wether they do
depends on the locatio
On 8/30/11 12:40 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
00:00:00 UTC is the same time everywhere. propagation only affects it
if you are transmitting a signal based on UTC. If I send a signal at
00:00:00 UTC from LA to Greenwich, they'l
Le 30/08/2011 09:40, Chris Albertson a écrit :
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
In other words, how did they solve the conflict where on one hand we'd all
expect two "perfect" clocks to "tick" at the same time but wether they do
depends on the location of the obs
-nuts] UTC and the speed of light?
Le 30/08/2011 11:21, Rob Kimberley a écrit :
> The original question asked whether the speed of light was taken into
> account in the definition of UTC. From where I'm standing (and please
> excuse the pun), it isn't.
>
> Rob Kimberley
Le 30/08/2011 11:21, Rob Kimberley a écrit :
The original question asked whether the speed of light was taken into
account in the definition of UTC. From where I'm standing (and please excuse
the pun), it isn't.
Rob Kimberley
There were 2 questions. I was agreeing to your response to the first a
lf Of mike cook
Sent: 30 August 2011 9:52 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] UTC and the speed of light?
Le 30/08/2011 10:36, Rob Kimberley a écrit :
> AFIK it isn't.
>
> Rob K
>
> -Original Message-
> From: time-nuts-b
[time-nuts] UTC and the speed of light?
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
In other words, how did they solve the conflict where on one hand we'd all
expect two "perfect" clocks to "tick" at the same time but wether they do
depends on the loc
AFIK it isn't.
Rob K
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Chris Albertson
Sent: 30 August 2011 8:40 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: [time-nuts] UTC and the speed of light?
How i
How is the speed of light accounted for in the definition of UTC?
In other words, how did they solve the conflict where on one hand we'd all
expect two "perfect" clocks to "tick" at the same time but wether they do
depends on the location of the observer?
--
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, Califo
Hal Murray wrote:
[Chile quake]
Graph of position (3 meters!):
http://ivsopar.obspm.fr/earth/tigo
3 meters in one direction and 60 in another.
Just to make sure we are all on the right track, the scale on the graph is
cm, so the motion was 300 cm West and 60 cm South.
I may have
On 06/12/2010 08:33 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
[Chile quake]
Graph of position (3 meters!):
http://ivsopar.obspm.fr/earth/tigo
3 meters in one direction and 60 in another.
I meant to write 60 cm naturally.
Just to make sure we are all on the right track, the scale on the graph is
cm
[Chile quake]
>>Graph of position (3 meters!):
>> http://ivsopar.obspm.fr/earth/tigo
> 3 meters in one direction and 60 in another.
Just to make sure we are all on the right track, the scale on the graph is
cm, so the motion was 300 cm West and 60 cm South.
I may have confused things
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 03:36 PM, jimlux wrote:
While it would be fun to know, the practical impact of such a change is
very, very small, to the level of being ignored. Considering of a major
event actually consisting of many hundreds of earth quakes spread over a
rather longi
On 06/12/2010 03:36 PM, jimlux wrote:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or,
probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a smal
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or,
probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquake
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured
Don't forget pulsars in this. Some of them rival atomic clocks and
they are a long way away and still line up nicely with our hydrogen
masers synchronized to caesium standards.
Jim Palfreyman
On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Mike S wrote:
> At 10:46 AM 6/11/2010, iov...@inwind.it wrote...
>
> (Specul
On 06/12/2010 02:33 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured
Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
I don't think y
At 10:46 AM 6/11/2010, iov...@inwind.it wrote...
(Speculative hint: We accept that the universe is expanding. Might
this affect
the fine structure of matter, including cesium atoms? Is there any
adverse
proof? What is easier to think? a) the expansion of the universe
doesn't affect
at all the
jim...@earthlink.net said:
> The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
> accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
> of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
Is there a good URL on this? (
>> Wikipedia says 2 ms/100 years and that it was noticed by
>> Halley in 1695 and confirmed by Dunthorne in 1749. I
>> assume they were using the Earth's orbit around the sun
>> as their reference clock.
> how exactly would that work? Are they measuring the number of "days" in a
> "year"? Ho
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is
more acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be
used to solve the matter, can anybody out there point me please to
any article on actual measurements of the variation rate of the
earth'
Hal Murray wrote:
iov...@inwind.it said:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to ex
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Whether the answer is (a) or (b) doesn't change the fact that
the earth day is a poor clock compared with other clocks now
available. Besides tidal friction effects which might be hard to
imagine, or lunar effects which you already know about, note
that every time it rains or
>bro...@pacific.net wrote:
>Hi Antonio:
>
>It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
>position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
>called "seeing".
>Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
>measurement of the Earth'
I think the answer is in your previous post, that is the year is more stable
than the day as compared to the same clock.
And this measurement very likely has been actually made.
Antonio I8IOV
Right.
Defining a second as 1 / 86400 of the length of a mean
solar day is also problematic because
> hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
snip
Hal,
thanks for your comments and for pointing me to the Wikipedia articles.
>I'm not really a physics wizard. There might be some gravity terms or
>experiments I've missed. But the universe isn't expanding very fast (at
>least not in the local re
Hi Antonio:
It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
called "seeing".
Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
measurement of the Earth's rotation to the accuracy needed t
> t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
>> Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
>> acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to
solve
>> the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
>> measurements of the varia
iov...@inwind.it said:
> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
> instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to explain why
atomic
> t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
>> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead
>> that clocks are speeding up?
>>
>> Antonio I8IOV
>
>Hi Antonio,
>
snip...
>The result of these comparisons show the earth day has
>more drift and is less stable than the earth ye
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed, no
Good point! matter & its properties should be affected by the decreasing
gravity of the expanding universe.
Is our time measurement also minutely changing with it?
At 11-06-10, you wrote:
>Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
>acceptable (sincerely I agree so
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
Hi Antonio,
Good question.
If all you had is one clock; then it is the time.
If you have two clocks you can see them drift apart (if
you can't, then you either aren't lo
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed, no
Sorry Antonio, please ignore me. I've just realised that it is my clock that
is speeding up :)
Cheers,
Steve
PS. note to self, always include a smiley with every posting, just in case.
On 11 June 2010 23:36, iov...@inwind.it wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve,
> would you please clarify your question?
> Anto
> In message <20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net>, Mike S
> writes:
>>At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>
>>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
>>quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
>
> Obviously, any measurement o
This whole time thing is based upon some arbitrary standard anyway. As soon
as the first leap-second was added and short while after the second was
defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition
between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. Trying to keep some
sta
Hi
There's a very real chance at a Nobel Prize if you can prove us all wrong
The simplest answer is celestial navigation. More or less:
When the sun rose 100 years ago the stars looked like this. Today when the sun
rises, the stars are in slightly different positions. You obviously have to
Steve,
would you please clarify your question?
Antonio I8IOV
sar10...@gmail.com wrote:
Antonio, where do I get some of the stuff your on?Cheers,
Steve
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin
>>iov...@inwind.it
>>writes:
>> >
>> >I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
>> down, instead
>> >that clocks are speeding up?
>>
>>Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
>>quasars.
>
>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotat
Antonio, where do I get some of the stuff your on?
Cheers,
Steve
On 11 June 2010 22:01, iov...@inwind.it wrote:
>
> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
> instead
> that clocks are speeding up?
>
> Antonio I8IOV
>
> _
In message <20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net>, Mike S writes:
>At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
>quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
Obviously, any measurement of earths r
At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
In message <815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51>,
"iov...@inwind.it
" writes:
>
>I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
down, instead
>that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the
In message <815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51>, "iov...@inwind.it
" writes:
>
>I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
>that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
quasars.
--
Poul-Henning K
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
an
.
Best,
Dick Moore
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "J. Forster"
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] UTC in Windows, and dual-booting
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Message-ID:
<1869.12.6.201.154.1255464072.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <1869.12.6.201.154.1255464072.squir...@popacctsnew.quik.com>, "J. Fo
rster" writes:
To hear an Apple or a UNIX disciple tell it, Microsoft never does anything
right. The fact is, Windows made personal computing bloom.
They also created at lot of jobs in Sea
In message <1869.12.6.201.154.1255464072.squir...@popacctsnew.quik.com>, "J. Fo
rster" writes:
>To hear an Apple or a UNIX disciple tell it, Microsoft never does anything
>right. The fact is, Windows made personal computing bloom.
They also created at lot of jobs in Seatle.
However, none of this
I was responding to a previous post bashing MS which passes for sport
among UNIX, LINUX, and Mac fans:
"There's a discussion about why MS is all wrong on this..."
They are as annoying, IMO, as people who ring your door bell and try and
convince you of THEIR way to salvation.
-John
==
Hi John,
What does your fascinating little story have to do with dual-booting clock
troubles?
M$ bashing/hailing can be done off list, IMHO.
--
Björn
> To hear an Apple or a UNIX disciple tell it, Microsoft never does anything
> right. The fact is, Windows made personal computing bloom.
>
>
To hear an Apple or a UNIX disciple tell it, Microsoft never does anything
right. The fact is, Windows made personal computing bloom.
I bought a Mac and a PC clone w/in a few weeks of each other in the early
90s. The PC clone cost under $2000, the Mac over $5000. The Mac hardware
died at least thr
On a somewhat related note, does anyone have a replacement for the
Windows clock (in the lower right corner of my screen) that displays
fractional MJD ?
At 03:38 PM 10/13/2009, Dick Moore wrote:
Haven't seen this discussed here, but I think it's interesting. Seems
Windows uses local time, wh
On a somewhat related note, does anyone have a replacement for the
Windows clock (in the lower right corner of my screen) that displays
fractional MJD ?
At 03:38 PM 10/13/2009, Dick Moore wrote:
Haven't seen this discussed here, but I think it's interesting. Seems
Windows uses local time, wh
Haven't seen this discussed here, but I think it's interesting. Seems
Windows uses local time, whereas MacOSX and Linux, as well as other
OSes use Posix/UTC. There's a discussion about why MS is all wrong on
this, with a possible Win fix using regedit
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/mswi
While sitting at the computer, I just heard the laptop attached to the
Z3801A "ding" at me. Going to look, I see that GPSCon Pro shows a "UTC
Receiver Timeout". I also had this happen twice on 2 Oct. On that day,
after the second timeout, I saw the Z3801A go into holdover for a few
minutes. Right n
This article from the NIST website also indicates that LORAN has or will have
a time code added to the old carrier-only LORAN signal. It indicates it's from
the "Proc. 2005 Int. Loran Assoc. Mtg."
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/2105.pdf
Dennis O'Keefe
New Paltz, New York
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Any serious
>proposal should include a serious risk analysis. Since we're talking
>about changing an international standard that has held for 30+ years,
>the onus falls on the group proposing a change.
And I think you will find that it wa
Just checking in - glad to see the conversation continues. I think a
cafeteria reply might be warranted. Press delete now if you disagree.
Poul-Henning Kamp says:
My interpretation of this is that systems which assume that DUT <
1s fail
This is one example of a larger class of risks tha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp says:
>That said, are you of the opinion that your limited perception of my
>project list (or social calendar, for that matter) has anything at
>all to do with resolving technical issues?
No, I'm saying that you thinking it
Poul-Henning Kamp says:
Other people think that by sheer majority of users, the UTC
timescale no longer belongs to the astronomers, and that it can and
should be redefined to serve its major target audience better.
You _really_ need to get out more...
I did get out more. I've been focusi
68 matches
Mail list logo
