OMG its 290091200278565000. With THAT my proposal still stands :-)
2014-08-20 21:48 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <[email protected]>: > Check that multiplication... :-) > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Preben Nørager <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I can not edit the numbers in my initial post, but I can do it here, and > > with that my proposel still stands: Drop the leap second, and continue > UTC > > without leap > > seconds, so that 1 mean solar year is defined as the > > duration of 290091175979732 [31556925,9747x9192631770] periods of > > > > radiation in the caesium atom > > > > > > > > 2014-08-20 16:43 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <[email protected]>: > > > >> To be a pedant [but if you can't be one on the leapsecs mailing > >> list...], the SI second is *9192631770* periods of the radiation etc. > >> Your figure is high by 1000. > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Preben Nørager <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > In the discussion about whether or not to drop the leap second, I > think > >> > it > >> > is not a question about solar time or not solar time. It is in other > >> > words > >> > not a question about either solar time or atomic time. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > If we drop the leap second it will be in favour of another timescale, > >> > which > >> > uses only atomic clocks to tell the time, but the time in that other > >> > timescale will still be based upon a kind of solar time. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > About a hundred years ago it was decided, that the mean solar year, > and > >> > not > >> > the mean solar day, should be the unit of international time. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In 1960 the second was defined as 1/31556925,9747 of the mean solar > >> > year, > >> > and in 1967 the second was redefined [equally in length to the > >> > previously > >> > defined second] as the duration of 9192632770 periods of radiation. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > When the second was defined in 1960 it was defined as a fraction of > the > >> > so-called tropical year. That was a mistake of wording. The tropical > >> > year is > >> > a measurement of the solar longitude on the ecliptic, but the > >> > international > >> > definition of the second is not based upon measurement of the solar > >> > longitude on the ecliptic. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The definition of the second is based upon Newcomb's theory of the > solar > >> > system, and in that theory it is the barycenter of the solar system, > and > >> > not > >> > the center of the sun, which defines the length of the solar year. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The length of the solar year, according to Newcomb’s theory, is the > time > >> > for > >> > the longitude of the barycenter of the solar system to increase 360 > >> > decrees. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The solar year, thus defined, can be measured either for one year, or > >> > for an > >> > average of years. > >> > > >> > > >> > But the 1960 and the 1967 definition of the second can also be used as > >> > an > >> > international definition of the mean solar year. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I think we should drop the leap second, and continue UTC without leap > >> > seconds as TI [International Time], so that 1 mean solar year is the > >> > duration of 290091231835491000 [31556925,9747x9192632770] periods of > >> > radiation in the caesium atom. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > LEAPSECS mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LEAPSECS mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs > > > > >
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
