I wrote:
Whatever the preferences of the ITU, they will discover that it is
simply unacceptable to allow local dates to vary secularly from
civil timekeeping dates.
Tony Finch replies:
Civil time *is* a form of local time.
The question isn't about haggling over terminology. We've had
Rob Seaman wrote:
Again, the issue is mean solar time, not local solar time.
This sentence doesn't make sense to me. You seem to have a different
definition of either mean or local from me. To be clear: the
(periodic) difference between apparent and mean solar time does not
affect my argument,
List members might be interested in the message below posted to the Sundial
List--yes,
some of us are interested in these devices that provide true time ;-). Not
that this
posting will likely sway current diverse and seemingly entrenched opinions of
some
members (one way or the other). By the
I wrote:
Historians looking backward want to relate events worldwide and
arrange them into coherent timelines.
Zefram replied:
Yes, they'll want the Olson database.
Precisely. For a scheme such as this to have any chance of working, a
requirement is that it be tightly coupled to a
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
Rather, a clock can be deposited at any meridian on any planet, set to any
time, running at any rate. The question is whether a particular choice of
parameters is useful and sustainable.
Really what it boils down to is a question of how frequently and
In message: 20081227134333.gm2...@fysh.org
Zefram zef...@fysh.org writes:
: Historians looking backward
: want to relate events worldwide and arrange them into coherent
: timelines.
:
: Yes, they'll want the Olson database.
How is the
In message: 5de48b7a-0d30-4580-b110-7687a75a2...@noao.edu
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu writes:
: Identifying the length of the civil day with the length of the mean
: solar day is the key to providing that coherence. (True now on Mars
: as well as Earth.) The mean solar day is just
On Sat 2008-12-27T19:22:00 -0700, M. Warner Losh hath writ:
Correct. However, the die was cast on this in 1958 when the second
was defined in terms of atomic behavior. At that point, the game was
up, since the basic unit of time was decoupled from the day. We
transitioned from having rubber
M. Warner Losh wrote:
How is the Olson database fundamentally different than the
historical data that a future historian would have based on the
measurements of the delta between what we call today TAI and UT1
times? It is just more data for them to swizzle into their
calculations?
