On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Chris Stake <st...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I don't get it. > Does that mean that leap days are OK but leap seconds are unacceptable?
It's even less logical than that. With "rubber seconds" tied to the Earth's rotation. You ultra stable cesium clock is no longer running at a fixed frequency. If the length of the second changs with the Earth's rate then the frequency of the cesium clock can be effected by earth quakes in Japan, tides and what not. I guess it's a valid decision to either (1) fix the length of the second and let the number of seconds per day be "whatever the Earth decides" so some days have an extra second and most don't. or, (2) define the day as 60 x 60 x 24 seconds long. And let the length of a second be continuously variable or (3) fix the length of the second AND define the day as 60 x 60 x 24 seconds long and just accept that after some centuries the sun will raise in mid morning. Using #2 makes the job of maintaining a frequency standard more interesting. That said of all the systems I like the Mayan one best. They defined the year as 360 days. Then after 360 days they stopped counting and had a party while they waited for the priest to watch the sun and declare the start of a new year. They got a week off. Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.