On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Peter Bunclark wrote:
I don't think Rob meant the above to be a complete course on
navigation!
...although as a fan of Patrick O'Brian I am qualified not only to
teach navigation, but also the violin and Catalan. You should see me
in a Bear costume.
Good
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Quadratic despair still lurks, of course, since the month is
lengthening for exactly the same reason as the day. Well, despair
would be lurking if we tried to match the length of the month (a
natural phenomenon) to an SI unit (such as the second).
On Jan 24, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Ed Davies wrote:
James Maynard wrote:
The problem is not that the SI second is not based on a natural
phenonemon (it is), but that the periods of the various natural
phenonema (rotations of the earth about its axis revolutions of the
earth about the sun,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:I think the crucial insight here is that geophysics makes (comparatively) lousy clocksThe crucial insight is that the Earth is not a clock at all, but rather the thing being timed.and we should stop using rotating bodies of geophysics for
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
is based on UTC and the standard time and frequency stations broadcast
UTC; and
2) Those who find it difficult to cope with UTC's leap
Oops, I meant to say wish to abolish leap seconds in the third
paragraph, rather than which to abolish leap seconds.
James Maynard wrote:
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
Rob Seaman wrote:
All proposals (other than rubber seconds or rubber days)
face the same quadratically accelerating divergence between clock and Earth.
By rubber seconds you, presumably, mean non-SI seconds. What do you
mean by rubber days? I'd guess you mean days which are
James Maynard wrote:
I wonder, though, whether those in the other camp would find it
acceptable to have the standard time and frequency stations not only
broadcast UTC and DUT1 (= UT1 - UTC, to 0.1 s resolution), but also to
broadcast DTAI (= TAI - UTC, 1 s resolution)?
A full
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
is based on UTC and the standard time and frequency stations broadcast
UTC; and
2) Those who find it difficult to cope with UTC's leap
Ed Davies wrote:By "rubber seconds" you, presumably, mean non-SI seconds. What do you mean by "rubber days"? I'd guess you mean days which are divided into SI seconds but not necessarily 86 400 of them.Yes. See for instance:
10 matches
Mail list logo
