Since the beginning of civilization society has pursued the goal of
perfect timekeeping. UTC is one of the great intellectual achievements
of mankind.
The difficulties with Leap Seconds are rooted in computer standards and
implementations, not theory. We must strive to advance the state of the
art, not abandon 4500 years of timekeeping history just because its
difficult. Ceaser didn't quit. Pope Gregory didn't quit. Harrison didn't
quit. Newcomb didn't quit.
"Dropping Leap Seconds" is something like burning great libraries.
-Brooks
On 2014-08-20 04:02 PM, Preben Nørager wrote:
OMG its 290091200278565000. With THAT my proposal still stands :-)
2014-08-20 21:48 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Check that multiplication... :-)
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Preben Nørager
<[email protected] <mailto:[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
<tel:%5B31556925>,9747x9192631770] periods of
>
> radiation in the caesium atom
>
>
>
> 2014-08-20 16:43 GMT+02:00 Keith Winstein <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
<tel: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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> LEAPSECS mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[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
