On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "universe".
The "universe" is a little larger than that for the astronomers. "Earth
time"
On 2014-01-17 10:49 PM, Ian Batten wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:22, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clea
On 2014-01-17 05:22 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clear that zero and negative year numbers are valid
Steve Allen said:
>>> What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
>>> leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun"
>>> up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
>>> see fit.
>>
>> Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the on
On 14/01/14 17:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <0ccafa25-523e-4022-a993-4bc2d9fe5...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
A timescale that omits that connection should not be denoted
Universal Time of any kind, coordinated or not.
I would argue that any timescale called "universal something"
On 14/01/14 16:37, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
In 1980 November the CCITT accepted UTC "as the time scale for all
other telecommunications activities". In 2007 the BIPM contributed
document 7A/51-E to the ITU-R WP7A meeting regarding Question ITU-R
236/7
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:22, Zefram wrote:
> Brooks Harris wrote:
>> Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
>> Maybe you can suggest a better term.
>
> "proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
> make clear that zero and negative year n
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
- "correction" is more widely understandable than "compensated" or
some more technical term.
"Correction" suggests a term that must always be added into certain
computations. This is quite different from a leap, which is an one-time
irregularity in an other
Brooks Harris wrote:
>Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
>Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clear that zero and negative year numbers are valid. But really,
when you're defining a t
Brooks Harris wrote:
>To us, to "drop" a count and to "leap" a count (which we have to do
>sometimes) have inverse meanings.
Ah, interesting. Thanks. That's worth a footnote in explanations of
leap seconds. Not enough of a clash to be worth renaming them, though.
-zefram
_
Brooks Harris wrote:
>A) If you establish a new timescale that includes the "Leap Seconds
>mechanism" you'd better rename it to make it clear its part of this
>new timescale, not some other.
Your proleptic extension of UTC certainly needs a name distinct from
"UTC", yes. That doesn't argue for re
Brooks Harris wrote:
>The idea behind "CCT" is to better define "civil time".
That seems only vaguely related to your more clearly stated objectives
of proleptic versions of TAI and modern UTC. It's too late to better
define pre-1972 civil time, and proleptic extension of UTC doesn't affect
curre
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
C) By declaring the anchor-point to existing TAI and UTC definitions
as 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z we have imposed an *uncompensated* Gregorian
calendar counting scheme on the proleptic part of the new timescale,
making -01-01T00:00:00Z the origin of the new ti
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
- Leap Seconds don't (theoretically) only "leap" - they could also "drop"
The word "leap" doesn't carry any connotation about direction.
In our world, that of television and media, is certainly does!
I think this is a really important point because it illu
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
E) Because "Leap Seconds" are at the center of the "kill Leap
Seconds" debate,
...
we also rename (our beloved) "Leap Seconds".
Respelling isn't going to fool most of the people in this debate.
Nobody is trying to fool anybody. I think there
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
I'll suggest a tentative name of this new timescale - "Common
Calendar Time (CCT)".
Decent name.
Hi Zefram,
Thanks for the response. I'll take this as an encouraging sign there is
merit to the idea.
B) Extrapolate an SI (1hz) tim
On 17 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2014 at 12:58, Richard Clark wrote:
>
>> When you enter a building on ground level and you go to a room on the
>> 1st floor do you expect to use the stairs or elevator? The answer depends
>> on wheather you are in Europe or the US (o
On 15 Jan 2014 at 12:58, Richard Clark wrote:
> When you enter a building on ground level and you go to a room on the
> 1st floor do you expect to use the stairs or elevator? The answer depends
> on wheather you are in Europe or the US (or on the campus of the University
> of Arizona).
One buildi
On 14 Jan 2014 at 23:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> It follows rather trivially from the fact that there were no
> year zero, that the first century must contain the years [1...100] in
> order to be a century.
And how many seconds must those years contain?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
Zefram wrote:
>
> You show your "Earth Correction" being a constant 10 s prior to
> 1972, and following the TAI-UTC difference thereafter. This makes a
> poor correction. If the intent is to define a proleptic version of
> modern UTC, you need to decide on dates for proleptic leap seconds.
For
On Jan 17, 2014, at 5:17 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Note that DST exists because people prefer to set their clocks to sunrise
> than to midday, but sunrise is too inconvenient so we use a quantized
> approximation.
DST exists for a complex set of sociological and political reasons. Whatever
the
Tony Finch wrote:
|Eric Fort wrote:
|> a schedule within seconds or even minutes I think the mass public
|> would probably like to see their wall clocks remain in sync with the
|> rotation of the planet on which they presently reside.
|
|Note that DST exists because people prefer to set the
I read a study from several years back that clocks and watches in hospitals
were not very well synchronized. Tomorrow I will be taking training as a
volunteer emergency medical technician on some new treatment protocols. One
of them is that if CPR has been in progress for 30 minutes, there are no
v
Eric Fort wrote:
> As for those simply going about their daily lives and wishing to make
> a schedule within seconds or even minutes I think the mass public
> would probably like to see their wall clocks remain in sync with the
> rotation of the planet on which they presently reside.
Note that D
Brooks Harris wrote:
>I'll suggest a tentative name of this new timescale - "Common
>Calendar Time (CCT)".
Decent name.
>B) Extrapolate an SI (1hz) timeline into the indefinite past,
>essentially declaring TAI and UTC proleptic timescales
You're conflating two different kinds of time scale here.
In message <20140117075158.ga2...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>In practice the birth team has far more important things to do than
>watch the clock.
When my son was born at Mt. Diablo Hospital in California, I asked
the staff how they dealt with midnight, DST changes and all that.
They to
26 matches
Mail list logo
