I don't think it is correct to say that astronomers are being thrown to the
wolves. The IAU has not taken a stand on this - if it were so simple then the
disagreements that were expressed in the IAU deliberations would not have been
sufficient to prevent a resolution. It is true that some estimates of large
conversion expenses have been presented, but others consider such claims
ridiculously large for a number of reasons that are not part of this thread.
From: Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]>
Cc: Leap Second Discussion List <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] the big artillery
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote:
In message <CAHZk5WfKSLMy77HK1Vsvk9PQ5v=tpb0rzuri8j4kmcezooa...@mail.gmail.com>
, Sanjeev Gupta writes:
>Note that "seconds" are also a unit of angles, so UT1 seconds being a
>measure of angle is not strange.
...and I'm sure any surveyor or ships navigator would be extremely suprised
if somebody told him that the degree between 23°59' and 24°00' had
sixtyone seconds once every other year or so.
To a person (me) who last used a theodolite in 1988, very surprising. But I
assume that to a professional navigator, this would be just another correction
he makes.
After all, (an inexact analogy), every year has 365 days, but sometimes we slip
in aa extra between 28 Feb and 01 Mar. Every fourth year. Except when we
don't. We are lucky that 2000 was a leap year, so people who did not know the
100 and 400 year rules got it right by mistake.
(back to Leapsecs)
The difference, I suppose, and the point where I agree with you, is that we
_know_ when the next leap year will happen, but Dr Gambis gives us shorter, and
essentially surprising, notice on the leap minute. Removing leap seconds is OK
with me, the fact that the earth angle will lose sync with civil time is a
small price for 7 billion of us, and I willing to throw astronomers to the
wolves. (What have the Romans ever done for us, anyway?)
The point where I disagree with you is keeping the name "UTC". When we (and I
use the term loosely) changed the rule from "leap every fourth year" to (except
for 100th year, except for 400th year). the new calendar had a new name. Over
time we stopped using Julian, but if I was to tell you 13 Jan 1300 Julian, you
would know if it was a leap year or not. I believe the USA'ns make a big deal
of George Washington's birthday being OS/NS, etc; but we can get the joke only
because there are suffixes that tell me what scale it is.
Look at this thread, and the efforts being made by you et al to remove the
confusion about the word "second"; because the SI second, the TAI (term used
without prior permission of BIPM) second, and the UT1 second. all use the word
"second".
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
