On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Rob Seaman wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: > >> For the purposes of my question "better" means "lower rate of leap second >> introduction for the next few decades" > > Then we're good right now.
But would we be "better" or "worse" by that metric if we adopted an SI second that was 1.000000046296 times longer than the one actually adapted. Or instead of 9,192,631,770 cycles it was 9,192,632,195 cycles of our hyperfine friend the CS atom. What would those graphs look like? Warner
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
