On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> Sometimes I think we should define a second that's 1e-11 or so shorter so
> that the problems of leap seconds disappear into the noise for a generation
> or three, but I doubt that would fare any better than any of the other
> suggestions made...
It's been ignored since I suggested it in 2001:
http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/leap
(Under "Future Directions")
However, view it the other way. Define a second that's 0.001% (just 1/100,000)
shorter. When a leap-hour-equivalent is required every decade it will become
obvious that the "day" is more fundamental to civilization than the "second".
Better yet, call the SI unit something other than a "second" and sever this
artificial confusion.
Interval time and Earth Orientation are two separate things.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
