On May 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Tom Van Baak <[email protected]> wrote:
> But adapting to new requirements, to new possibilities, to new performance is > ok. This is one reason why I sympathize with those who want to abandon leap > seconds. Discovering new requirements doesn't mean old engineering requirements cease. > When leap seconds were proposed in the 60's, AC plugs were all 2-prong, radio > chassis were hot, DOS didn't exist, 110 baud was standard, electronic > voltages were 6.3 VAC (filament) and ~250 VDC (plate B+), there were no > quartz wrist watches, or airbags. Evolution is ok. It might even be natural. These examples are not at the same level as leap seconds. Rather the requirements derived from "day" meaning "synodic day" are similar to recognizing that electrons have a negative charge, or Ohm's Law. Both of these continue to be addressed even if you use a different international power plug, or CMOS versus TTL. It is simply fact that solar time and atomic time are two distinct kinds of timescale, that frequency standards and clocks are two different things. Leap seconds are one tested mechanism for managing the distinction. Rob _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
