Delporte Jerome wrote: >So I don't understand this assertion that replacing leap seconds by >leap hours would break any link to mean solar time ...
The leap hour plan is so impractical that no one here thinks one would actually ever be executed. Adopting the leap hour proposal would just postpone leaps for the next 600 years or so, during which time it is presumed our descendants would scrap leaps altogether. We therefore judge the leap hour proposal as a dishonest version of the proposal to abolish leaps at once (hence the "shell game" comment from Rob). The enormous problems in executing leap hours have been dissected on this list in the past; see the archive. To summarise: leap hour events would be so infrequent that software would never be properly tested (or even written) to deal with them; local gross violation of the 1440-minute day model; notational difficulty in referring to points in the leap hour when using timezones; difficulty achieving international agreement on scheduling; difficulty finding political will to institute such a disruptive event. In all these respects, and others, the leap hour plan is totally unlike the existing UTC with leap seconds (and earlier UTC with sub-second leaps). -zefram _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
