On Jan 9, 2006, at 12:23 AM, John Cowan wrote:
This is like the "day is light and night is dark" statement: there is, at any given location, one and only one sunrise per (solar) day, no matter what clocks say.
Communication prospers when people's clear meaning is not subjugated to petty grammarians. We are now - and have been - discussing timekeeping changes that call into question the definition of a "day". Those of us who support solar time are fundamentally asserting the primacy of the the standard day over the standard second (for civil timekeeping purposes). Those of us who consider solar time to be a curious anachronism, assert the the SI second over the concept of a day (for civil timekeeping purposes).
As I've pointed out before, future times in legal documents are defined as LCT for a particular place, since the future mapping between LCT and any other time scale is not known.
At the risk of igniting a new round of "stage two" nonsense, consider the implications of your statement. Currently LCT (as you appear to mean it) is standard time. Daylight saving (under whatever name) is merely an overlay on standard time. Standard time has no jumps (except for leap seconds). Under your suggestion, LCT would include the jumps for daylight saving time (if locally used) as well as the jumps to correct for the cumulative effect of tidal slowing. As I hope I have established, these are "fall back" discontinuities that would result in the same hour of LCT occurring twice. Is this not perceived to be a problem? Rob