Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-13 Thread William Thompson
to happen .6s into that second, it would be denoted (assuming a june leap) as: 30 June, 23h 59m 60.6s UTC (the document has h, m and s superscripted, and the European (?) style centered decimal point) Warner -- William Thompson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 612.1 Greenbelt, MD 20771

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-06 Thread William Thompson
Time that the original intent was that UTC would be more-or-less synchronous with UT0, UT1, UT2. The current debate is whether we should move away from that original intent. -- William Thompson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 612.1 Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA 301-286-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: civil time = solar time

2006-01-05 Thread William Thompson
better than one hour accuracy. -- William Thompson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 612.1 Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA 301-286-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a system that fails spectacularly

2005-12-07 Thread William Thompson
://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m -- William Thompson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 612.1 Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA 301-286-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comments on Civil Time decision tree

2005-09-27 Thread William Thompson
, TAI or UTC, are calculated and maintained onboard the spacecraft. Bill Thompson P.S. Please excuse me if you get this message twice. I was having trouble with my subscription setup, and wasn't sure if it really went out the first time. -- William Thompson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Re: Comments on Civil Time decision tree

2005-09-27 Thread William Thompson
Randy Kaelber wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:56:07PM -0400, William Thompson wrote: The spacecraft that I've had experience with coordinate the spacecraft clocks with Earth-based time standards. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft (which at a distance of 0.01 A.U. can

Re: pedagogically barren?

2003-06-05 Thread William Thompson
is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches. I would say that was a long way from being completely unrelated to the inch. While the pound is unrelated to the inch, it is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship. William Thompson