On Mon 2006/01/16 00:40:28 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
of the ALHP anyhow (save perhaps tactically, as explained).
Agreement!
But does anyone think that the leap hour proposal is anything
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:09:20AM -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:46 AM, John Cowan wrote:
In the end, it will be impossible to maintain the notion that a solar
day is 24h of 60m of 60s each: we wind up, IIRC, with the solar day
and lunar month both at about
On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given
that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone
care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what will
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I
challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not
addressed by the leap hour proposal.
I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
of the ALHP anyhow
It should be clear that the gaps and repeats are fictitious, especially
if you think of AEST and AEDT as existing beyond the times when they are
in legal use. Putting it in practical terms, suppose I have a traffic
accident at 0230 on 2006/04/02, what time will the police officer write
in
John Cowan wrote:
[If TAI - 33 s were taken as the new basis for civil timescales, then]
It is UTC that would be eliminated as the basis for local time. It could
be maintained for such other purposes as anyone might have.
Yes, the IERS could maintain it as the timescale for a
On Thu 2006/01/12 02:36:44 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
We already have that repeated time sequence and gap in much of the world,
and live with it. These repetitions would be no better and no worse;
when a gap is present, the local sovereignty can omit the
Rob Seaman scripsit:
And the point I'm making is that you can't shift timezones at will to
accomplish this without creating seams in legally realized time.
We already have seams in legally recognized time.
Just making the dark stay put would result in ambiguous
timekeeping. Daylight saving
What now, Dr. Moebius? Prepare your minds for a new scale... of physical scientific values, gentlemen.Mark Calabretta takes the lazy man's way out and appeals to facts: Here in a topology-free way is what the axis labels of my graph looklike during
