On 16 Aug 2018 at 0:18, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
> Maybe time travel is hard because you need to set the dial using UT2,
> but the UTC-UT2 difference is known only in the future of the traveler
> wanting to back?
This was, weirdly enough, a plot point in the comic book story of
"Superman's Girl
On 2018-08-15 11:49, Zefram wrote:
Time Service Announcement 14 #8 (1971-10-08) discusses the irregular
leap (still called a "step") at the end of 1971, but weirdly gives a
different size for that step from that which is implied by tai-utc.dat.
The announcement states a step size of 107600
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> Of course, Tom showed years ago having a different base frequency than
> 9,192,631,770Hz would have fit the wobble of the earth better, but that was
> settled in the late 50s / early 60s so we'd have to go farther back in time
> to 'fix' that.
Further than that :-) The
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:59 PM Zefram wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
> >Eg, would we really be worse off if we'd said 'there will be a leap second
> >every 18 months starting Jan 1 1972?
>
> That would be a pretty good result, but would anyone have picked that
> rate of leaps in 1971?
>
All this
Warner Losh wrote:
>Eg, would we really be worse off if we'd said 'there will be a leap second
>every 18 months starting Jan 1 1972?
That would be a pretty good result, but would anyone have picked that
rate of leaps in 1971? That period happened to be a local maximum of LOD:
since 1966 the UTC
On Wed 2018-08-15T12:49:14+0100 Zefram hath writ:
> The announcement states a step size of 107600 us, but the expressions in
> tai-utc.dat imply a step size of exactly 107758 us. The announcement is
> ambiguous as to whether this step size is specified in microseconds of UTC
> or of TAI,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:49 AM, Zefram wrote:
> Another thing missing from the analogy is the distinction
> between arithmetical and observational calendars, which is very relevant,
> UTC being observational and the Julian calendar (the announcement's
> comparand) being arithmetical.
I wish
Steve Allen wrote:
>https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/leapincept.html
I find it interesting that Time Service Announcement 14 #7
(1970-10-23), explaining the system of leap seconds, explicitly brings
out the similarity between leap seconds and leap days, likening
UTC-with-leap-seconds to a
Back in March Demetrios Matsakis objected to some of my web pages and
also pointed out the role that Gernot Winkler had in their inception.
That led me to dive deeper into the Lick Observatory Library and find
more documents which present contemporary views of the people who were
there at the
