On 14/01/14 17:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <0ccafa25-523e-4022-a993-4bc2d9fe5...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
A timescale that omits that connection should not be denoted
Universal Time of any kind, coordinated or not.
I would argue that any timescale called "universal something" should
not be tied to any particular lump of orbital debris.
In particular not in deference to lack of imagination on the part
of scientist two centuries ago.
Universal means all of the world, world meaning our world, so it is that
lump of orbital debris. It's just that the word has undergone a shift in
meaning.
Universal Pictures never meant to say that they where making movies for
other solar systems. Look at the earth they are using as symbol:
http://www.universalpictures.com/
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years which all covers the concept derived from the
basic properties. I'm not even sure caesium would be the natural
selection of reference, and if you use caesium, you are expected to be
using it at the gravitational pull matching up with mean sea-level of
that orbital debris you where talking about.
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "universe".
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
