On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:43:03 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>Does it automatically adjust for relativistic effects? This is critical
>because the Earth, upon which I assume the clock resides, does not reside
>in an inertial frame, but is constantly accelerating.
>
It must, given that such effects have been measured for about a half century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment#Gravitational_time_dilation
On 02/23/2015 06:53 AM, Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote:
> This is another example of nature, very irritatingly, not obeying our rules,
> like the leap-second. How shall we call this second? No hurry, we still got
> time.
>
Indeed. One contributor to this forum is so irritated that he denies that the
next leap second
will properly be designated:
2015 June 30, 23h 59m 60s
https://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat
... because that contradicts the congruential scheme of time notation obsoleted
by the
adoption of UTC in 1972.
I grant that:
o UTC with its leap seconds is a PITA to IT personnel.
o I believe (a smoothed) UT1 would have been a better standard for IT. Alas,
POSIX hadn't that foresight.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
