Rob Seaman scripsit: > What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require > the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of Universal > Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?
*sigh* LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to a UTC time is currently (a) annoying and (b) depends on updating tables. > Attempting to move the entire worldwide civil time system to a > non-Earth based clock is equivalent to attempting to build a clock > designed to run untended for 600 years - in effect, to attempting to > build a millennium clock. The alarm must be designed to ring in 599 > years time. This is simply not true. The LCT-TI offsets can be adjusted locally as and when they individually start to be a problem. No global changeover is required. > Systems that don't need time-of-day should use TAI. Wall clocks need to run in LCT, which is currently founded on UTC. Most people don't need precision time-of-day (which should be rightly called "Earth angle" and measured in SI radians). They just need there to be a rough correlation between LCT and the sun, and several hours' discrepancy can be tolerated. Just go to Urumqi, or Detroit if Urumqi is too remote. > And most definitely, let's stop these inane and embarrassing closed > door discussions among biased insiders. Personally, I am a biased outsider. > It ain't your clock - it's *our* clock. Eh? Who are "you" and who are "we"? -- Not to perambulate John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel