Earlier I wrote:
The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, mentions
alternatives to atomic time under study that may offer
improvements. (I don't have the book handy and cannot recall what they
are. I will try to post a follow-up on Monday.) I believe that
atomic timing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
...as the time of sunset varies by as much as 6 hours from
solstice to solstice (here in Michigan).
end snip
Hmmm... can someone help me out? A quick check of my astrolabe,
with a plate for St. Paul, MN, gives sunset at about
Dear Dialists...
Regarding the assertion by David Higgon that the Earth makes a better clock
than the frequency of an arbitrarily chosen atom. Unfortunately Earth's
rotation is slowing down, so the atom is preferable, though admittedly less
romantic. Presumably, if the human timekeepers
Dear John,
That's an excellent point, but of course time is used for more than determing
when the sun will be visible. A sundial is actually a poor indicator even of
what it does best, as the time of sunset varies by as much as 6 hours from
solstice to solstice (here in Michigan). So really
Some of the recent postings on GMT and UTC contain inaccuracies and
half-truths. It was to set the record straight that I wrote the article on GMT
and UTC in the first place. It's enough to drive a professor to drink (feel
free to send some 18 yr. Macallan single malt!). For those who haven't
Dear All,
Thank you for the many responses regarding the difference between GMT and
UTC.
Let me see if I've got this right...
To all intents and purposes the two are the same. UTC is more acurate
(or should I say regular) because it's based on the frequency of some
arbitrary atom that has
Dear Dialists...
Regarding the assertion by David Higgon that the Earth makes a better clock
than the frequency of an arbitrarily chosen atom. Unfortunately Earth's
rotation is slowing down, so the atom is preferable, though admittedly less
romantic. Presumably, if the human timekeepers endure
