On 8 Jan 2007 at 0:15, Tony Finch wrote:
How did you extend the UTC translation back past 1972 if the undelying
clock followed TAI? I assume that beyond some point in the past you say
that the clock times are a representation of UT. However TAI matched UT in
1958 and between then and 1972 you
On 4 Jan 2007 at 10:53, Peter Bunclark wrote:
Indeed isn't this Rob's ship's chronometer?
Captain's log, stardate 30620.1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardate
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
On 2 Jan 2007 at 12:40, Warner Losh wrote:
The interval math in UTC that's hard today would be significantly
harder with rubber seconds. But it is just software, eh?
In short, it is an interestingly naive idea that was tried in the
1960's and failed when there were only dozens of high
On 2 Jan 2007 at 19:40, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much energy is required to change
the Earths rotation fast enough to make this rule relevant ?
Superman could do it. Or perhaps he could nudge the Earth's rotation
just enough to make the length of a mean solar day
On 2 Jan 2007 at 11:47, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
The obvious solution is to transmit rubber time on a rubber frequency.
Are rubber duckies involved?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
On 2 Jan 2007 at 11:56, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
GPS is TAI. I'm not proposing abandoning TAI for those applications
that need it.
It's a few seconds off from TAI, isn't it? It was synchronized to
UTC in 1980 (I think), but without subsequent leap seconds, so it's
now different from both TAI and
On 27 Dec 2006 at 20:57, John Cowan wrote:
Very true. And adopting the Egyptian-Roman calendar redefined
the concept of a month. Somehow civilization survived.
Keeping months in sync with phases of the moon apparently turned out
to be insufficiently important to civilization to require it as
On 13 Dec 2006 at 21:43, Steve Allen wrote:
http://gauss.gge.unb.ca/papers.pdf/gpsworld.january01.pdf
One quibble with that article is that it gives the Global Positioning
System as an example of how humanity has been obsessed with knowing
what time it is. Actually, GPS arises from our
On 21 Jan 2006 at 10:11, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I maintain that for human activity, there's no need for leap seconds
at all. In each person's lifetime, the accumulated error is on the
order of a few minutes. Over generations, the problems with noon
drifting to 1pm can trivially be solved by
On 21 Jan 2006 at 15:15, M. Warner Losh wrote:
For some perspective, we've been using UTC for only ~50 years and the
gregorian calendar for only ~1500 years. I'd anticipate that
something would need to be done about the slowing of the day well
before 4300 years have passed.
Actually, that's
On 11 Jan 2006 at 0:08, Tim Shepard wrote:
If humans spread out to other places besides the earth, an
earth-centric time scale might begin to seem somewhat quaint.
Distributing leap second information to a Mars colony seems kind of
silly.
As I recall, the NASA Mars missions are using
On 8 Jan 2006 at 15:04, Tom Van Baak wrote:
You cannot divide timekeeping, time dissemination,
into neat stages. In the 1960s if ten labs were told
to offset their phase or frequency it affected only a
handful of people or systems. Today when IERS
announces a leap second, millions of
On 9 Dec 2005 at 10:42, David Harper wrote:
On the other hand, the idea of ISO 9000 compliant Morris dancers is a
very funny one. Presumably, they'd have to standardise the size of
their pig's bladders. There's a Monty Python sketch just waiting to be
written.
I'm guessing that their level
I sure hope that the future of mankind's timekeeping systems doesn't
get decided by an Internet flame war between contending groups of
geeks...
As I see it, the dispute comes from the fact that people want two
different, irreconcilable types of time, time of day (earth/solar
angle) and constant
14 matches
Mail list logo
