astronomy-chat.net Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main Date: 30 May 2007 17:51:43 From: Quadibloc Subject: Avoiding the Leap Second In the beginning, there was Ephemeris Time. Then, it got replaced by TAI. Both were made up of seconds the length of which was based on the length of the second in 1900. But the Earth's rotation has been slowing down, due to tidal forces. Because TAI started off from civil time at the time of its adoption, while Ephemeris time presumably started on noon, December 31st, 1899, GMT, a clock showing Ephemeris Time would be 32.184 seconds ahead of one showing TAI. And a clock showing TAI would be 19 seconds ahead of one showing the time used in the GPS system. Civil time switched over to atomic time with inserted leap seconds when TAI was already 10 seconds ahead of civil time. Anyways: a while back, there was a message in these newsgroups about how a group, shrouding its activities in mystery, came forwards with a proposal to just forget about leap seconds. We could always adjust our clocks an hour at a time, if we really felt strongly about wanting local 12 noon to happen around lunchtime. I don't think the mass of humanity really considers it so important to be "modern" and "scientific" that they would willingly allow the clock to be independent of the real time of day. But it is true that leap seconds are awkward and confusing. I would like to suggest an alternative for those whose concerns are precise ones. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, and about 365 days in a year. If we add one second to a year, then, that lengthens the year by one part in 365 times 86,400. If we instead increased the length of every *second* in that year by the same proportion, we would be making the civil second equal to 1 SI second and 31.70979198... SI nanoseconds. This would be an approximation to UT1, or mean solar time, the way civil time was kept *before* we had leap seconds. Adding 30, 32, or 33 1/3 nanoseconds... or going from 9,192,631,770 cesium atom oscillations to 9,192,632,061.5 cesium atom oscillations (adding 291.5)... or whichever approximation might be most convenient, for the forthcoming year to the length of the second; or subtracting, or adding twice that, as necessary, would allow us to have a civil time without leap seconds. The length of the civil second would vary, but there would only be a limited number of possible variations, separated by uniform steps. I presume this would be good enough for those applications where leap seconds are disruptive; those where a second absolutely fixed in length is required would have to cope with the difference between TAI and civil time and its changes. Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead (adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). John Savard   Date: 09 Jun 2007 04:05:25 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 8, 1:40 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > The creation of the 24 hour cycle from the unequal natural noon cycle > > is based on a simple,do you hear, a simple recognition that no two > > natural cycles are alike - > > . > Yes, no two natural cycles are alike. > Here is what you do.Call up Nasa and inform them of this basic principle - " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html Maybe you can show the doctorates the actual treatise by Huygens in case they are in any doubt - http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html > > Unless there is a severe diseased mind there is absolutely no way a > > person is going to miss the connection between the variations in noon > > cycle and the 24 hour cycle.For whatever reason,and I cannot account > > for it even allowing that Newton's concepts are built on the > > astrological framework of 'sidereal time', people believe that a > > location rotates to face noon in 24 hours - > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time > > Does this Wikipedia site illustrate the truth, or the false dominant > orthodoxy, in your opinion? > It is your monster,not mine. If I could I would direct people towards the enjoyable concept where the 24 hour day is created out of the recognition that the total length of the noon cycle is never the same despite Nasa and 3 centuries of garbage stating otherwise. > > I have not overstated the situation where the dominant concept at the > > core of astronomy is a creationist-type affair all wrapeed up in > > justifying the Earth's motions using celestial sphere geometry.The > > behavior of people is shocking even for this person accustomed to the > > cult thinking of empiricists for all you are doing is trying to avoid > > the basic fact that Flamsteed made a specific mistake by tying axial > > rotation directly to a return of a star to a meridian. > > . > The term "empiricist" means someone who relies on the facts, so I > would think that such people are the farthest away from "cult > thinking". > You accept the 'fact' that the observation of a star returning to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds determines the axial and orbital motions of the Earth,the fact is that to keep the system ticking over you have to force the 4 orbital cycles into a 1461 calendrical cycle split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.Because it leads to astrological geometry,it is a cult view. Humanity is told how profound the theories of relativity is and only a superior mind understands its implication,the truth is the concepts such as Newtonian mechanics and the early 20th century junk hide an astrological core,the same convoluted reasoning which is forced on humanity in respect to the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency is also used to promote the 'genius' of theoretical garbage at the expense of magnificent astronomical insights. > You agree that the Solar System is heliocentric. You agree that the > Earth goes around the Sun. So even in one day, the Sun is in a > different direction from the Earth than it was one day ago, right? > > The 24 hour day is the *average* of how long it takes a spot on the > Earth to face towards the Sun again; if that wasn't true, our clocks > would drift away from solar time over the years, instead of being > brought back by an Equation of Time that gives a purely seasonal > variation. > You are addressing the person who has shown people for the first time how the average and human devised 24 hour cycle was adapted to the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes via the Equation of Time correction.The treatise of Huygens,while showing how the 24 hour day is created and maintained, does not explain how the transfer between the pre-Copernican average 24 hour day and the Copernican principle of axial rotation was made by transfering the 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial cycle.It takes a delicate sense to appreciate how the transfer was made and why it is so stable but any engineer would delight in how it all meshes together as a magnificent structure. > A rotating body, if it is not disturbed, will continue to rotate > uniformly. So the Earth's rotation (except for very slight effects > caused by seasonal winds, giving rise to UT2-UT1) will not speed up > and slow down every year. Thus, while the return to Solar noon is not > exactly in 24 hours, the return to face in the same direction - which > we can judge by the stars - every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds > - is regular. > Justifying 4 orbital cycles using a calendar framework of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days is creationistlike in content and character.To spare me having to repeat this again,in orcer to have a star return in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,never mind justifying the Earth's motion by it,you need the calendar system and the leap day to keep it ticking over. > The Earth's rotation on its axis and the Earth's orbit around the Sun > are _two_ natural cycles. And, indeed, with two natural cycles, > they're not going to coincide exactly so that one is an exact multiple > of the other. If you *derive* a third cycle, based on the Earth's > rotation on its axis *minus* the Earth's orbit around the Sun, to get > the mean solar day, that isn't going to be an exact multiple of the > year either. > I always tell people that sticking by the correct and original principles stops the convoluted sidereal nonsense in its tracks.Turn what way you will,you end up with nonsense views of the Earth's axial and orbital cycles and then it becomes a human tragedy,the inability to enjoy the cycles of the Earth which make existence possible is probably the lowest level to which human intelligence can descend and especially in this day and age with the aid of imaging techniques. > But since you're starting from two natural cycles only, not three > independent ones, the fact that the sidereal day loses *exactly* one > day a year over the solar day is not an amazing coincidence; it's the > result of one of the three cycles involved being purely a mathematical > creation. > > Hey, wait a moment. The cycle of night and day is real and natural; > how dare I say that it's just a "mathematical creation", and this 23 > hour, 56 minute, 4 second sidereal day, that nobody heard of before > Newton and Flamsteed came along, is the "real" natural cycle? > > The Sun and the stars have both been with us for a long time. The > Earth turned to face different stars, and to face the Sun, long before > there were humans to form cosmologies. So the orbit of the Earth > around the Sun is a place where Nature itself performs the > mathematical operation of subtraction. If nature did not perform > mathematics, humans would not have come to think of mathematics > through their study of nature. > > John Savard It may have been that humanity was dazzled for the last century with fantastic and novelistic concepts such as time travel and goodness knows what but right now it needs a more stable connection between the Earth's motions and climatology.The idea that you can make up whatever story you want to reach whatever conclusions you need is a counter- productive way to approach the matter and if anything that may be the only correct conclusion that can be drawn at present.   Date: 08 Jun 2007 20:39:49 From: Dr J R Stockton Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In sci.astro.amateur message <1181262939.638708.197420@j4g2000prf.google groups.com >, Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:35:39, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> posted: >It's "now" everywhere. When it is 6 PM EST on the East Coast, it is >5PM CST in the Midwest, 4PM MST on the leeward side of the Rockies, >and 3PM PST on the West Coast, Not here, it isn't; the time is the same in Grimsby as it is in the Solway Firth. And the difference between Sydney and Perth is, IIRC, less than you say. One should be careful not to presume that everyone is an American, even if one seems to be Canadian. Though ISTM that the Canadian coasts are four hours apart ... -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ > - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.     Date: 04 Jul 2007 08:58:39 From: Odysseus Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <Azo+hTnFCbaGFwAr@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid >, Dr J R Stockton <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote: <snip > > Though ISTM that the Canadian coasts are four hours apart ... Depending on which coasts you're considering, up to four and a half. -- Odysseus   Date: 08 Jun 2007 04:40:34 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > The creation of the 24 hour cycle from the unequal natural noon cycle > is based on a simple,do you hear, a simple recognition that no two > natural cycles are alike - . Yes, no two natural cycles are alike. > Unless there is a severe diseased mind there is absolutely no way a > person is going to miss the connection between the variations in noon > cycle and the 24 hour cycle.For whatever reason,and I cannot account > for it even allowing that Newton's concepts are built on the > astrological framework of 'sidereal time', people believe that a > location rotates to face noon in 24 hours - > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Does this Wikipedia site illustrate the truth, or the false dominant orthodoxy, in your opinion? > I have not overstated the situation where the dominant concept at the > core of astronomy is a creationist-type affair all wrapeed up in > justifying the Earth's motions using celestial sphere geometry.The > behavior of people is shocking even for this person accustomed to the > cult thinking of empiricists for all you are doing is trying to avoid > the basic fact that Flamsteed made a specific mistake by tying axial > rotation directly to a return of a star to a meridian. . The term "empiricist" means someone who relies on the facts, so I would think that such people are the farthest away from "cult thinking". You agree that the Solar System is heliocentric. You agree that the Earth goes around the Sun. So even in one day, the Sun is in a different direction from the Earth than it was one day ago, right? The 24 hour day is the *average* of how long it takes a spot on the Earth to face towards the Sun again; if that wasn't true, our clocks would drift away from solar time over the years, instead of being brought back by an Equation of Time that gives a purely seasonal variation. A rotating body, if it is not disturbed, will continue to rotate uniformly. So the Earth's rotation (except for very slight effects caused by seasonal winds, giving rise to UT2-UT1) will not speed up and slow down every year. Thus, while the return to Solar noon is not exactly in 24 hours, the return to face in the same direction - which we can judge by the stars - every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds - is regular. The Earth's rotation on its axis and the Earth's orbit around the Sun are _two_ natural cycles. And, indeed, with two natural cycles, they're not going to coincide exactly so that one is an exact multiple of the other. If you *derive* a third cycle, based on the Earth's rotation on its axis *minus* the Earth's orbit around the Sun, to get the mean solar day, that isn't going to be an exact multiple of the year either. But since you're starting from two natural cycles only, not three independent ones, the fact that the sidereal day loses *exactly* one day a year over the solar day is not an amazing coincidence; it's the result of one of the three cycles involved being purely a mathematical creation. Hey, wait a moment. The cycle of night and day is real and natural; how dare I say that it's just a "mathematical creation", and this 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second sidereal day, that nobody heard of before Newton and Flamsteed came along, is the "real" natural cycle? The Sun and the stars have both been with us for a long time. The Earth turned to face different stars, and to face the Sun, long before there were humans to form cosmologies. So the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is a place where Nature itself performs the mathematical operation of subtraction. If nature did not perform mathematics, humans would not have come to think of mathematics through their study of nature. John Savard   Date: 07 Jun 2007 23:25:47 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 8, 2:35 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > A location on Earth does not rotate to noon in 24 hours > > A location on Earth does not rotate to face noon in 24 hours > > A location on Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours > > . > Yes, because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so the correction from > the Equation of Time changes slightly each day. > The creation of the 24 hour cycle from the unequal natural noon cycle is based on a simple,do you hear, a simple recognition that no two natural cycles are alike - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html Unless there is a severe diseased mind there is absolutely no way a person is going to miss the connection between the variations in noon cycle and the 24 hour cycle.For whatever reason,and I cannot account for it even allowing that Newton's concepts are built on the astrological framework of 'sidereal time', people believe that a location rotates to face noon in 24 hours - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time I have not overstated the situation where the dominant concept at the core of astronomy is a creationist-type affair all wrapeed up in justifying the Earth's motions using celestial sphere geometry.The behavior of people is shocking even for this person accustomed to the cult thinking of empiricists for all you are doing is trying to avoid the basic fact that Flamsteed made a specific mistake by tying axial rotation directly to a return of a star to a meridian. > > If anyone has any questions about the unequal noon cycle then I refer > > them to Huygens treatise where all questions are answered - > > >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html > > . > Since no one else seems to have come to the same conclusions as you > about current astronomical thinking being wrong-headed *from* the > writings of Huyghens or Copernicus, I'm afraid you're reading more > into those writings than others do. > The treatise of Huygens is the first real detailed schematic which superimposes the Equation of Time generated 24 hour day onto terrestrial longitudes as a 4 minutes for each degree of geographical seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.I am rightly proud of that great human achievement and especially as it is derived from the original Copernican insight which uses the Earth's orbital motion to explain the behavior of the other planets.As somebody who is involved in the engineering business, these two Western insights in structural and timekeeping astronomy and the way they are linked by brilliant reasoning,they are a marvel and a joy to behold. You come here day and and day out and try to talk your way out of a basic mistake but I only see it as ignoring the basic correlation which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees.You make up the same stories that Newton made up in hijacking the careful work of so many,many people that went into the emergence of Copernican heliocentricity and replace it with a mess that serves no end but to rot our civilisation from the inside,a publically funded pretensious exercise at the expense of genuine human achievements. What do you do when you discover that at the core of all your concepts is a silly mistake - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html Those big institutions and especially the Nasa website who promote a 23 hour 56 minute value using the motions of the Earth should really look at the actual methods proposed by Huygens in how the 24 hour day is generated and then how it is applied to the axial cycle as a 24 hour/360 degrees correlation thereby helping humanity rather than trying to twist things into a convoluted mess. If you think it is me against everyone else you can forget it,as far as I am concerned I am presenting the original reasoning which derives directly from the insights of Copernicus and show where the guys in the late 17th century jumped the tracks and subsequently how the 'astrological' indoctrination still survives in this day and age.It is a serious matter considering that the public fund concepts which are counter-productive ,novelistic, downright silly and all with that 23 hour 56 minute value at its core. > quoting me: > > > > > > Not the Earth facing a distant star every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 > > > seconds. That is still regular like clockwork - even if, Nature being > > > imperfect, it isn't *quite* as regular as the best hydrogen masers. > > > > No. Only the Earth facing the Sun every 24 hours is compromised. > > > Hence, the Equation of Time. > > > > Conclusion: thinking about the Earth's motions by taking the 23 hour, > > > 56 minute, and 4 second period as one of the elements of those motions > > > makes understanding them simpler. > > > Indeed,there is another group who like to keep things simple based on > > having the same problems with the 24 hour day and natural > > phenomena,they are called the creationists.Personally,I find you lot > > far worse because of your dominance but humanity has yet to grow out > > of 'time travel' and other such nonsense based on that core error by > > Flamsteed. > > . > It's "now" everywhere. When it is 6 PM EST on the East Coast, it is > 5PM CST in the Midwest, 4PM MST on the leeward side of the Rockies, > and 3PM PST on the West Coast, but these are just different names for > the same time; at one moment, the places on the Earth are in a 360 > degree circle, so they are facing, in relation to the Sun, in all > different directions, corresponding to all the 24 hours of the day. > > People call the same moment in time by different clock names simply > because, where they live, the Sun is in a different direction, so the > local time of day differs; for some, it is time to wake up, for others > time to eat lunch, for others time to eat supper, and for others time > to go to bed. The moment in time is the same, but the time of day is > different. There is no "time travel" here. > > I find it extremely unlikely that the intelligent people who > "dominate" astronomy and physics have made some terrible mistake in > understanding the Solar System, comparable to the fallacies of > Creationists. > > Instead, what I think has happened is that you have made some mistake > in understanding what ordinary astronomers believe. Or, it could be > that you do believe something about the Solar System that is not true, > but which Copernicus and Huyghens do not appear, to you, to > contradict. It could even be that the argument is not about facts, but > is about semantic choices in describing the Solar System. > > It is unfortunate that you feel that it is not feasible for you to > explain your view in more detail; I assure you, neither the Huyghens > quote, nor the animated GIF of Mars going retrogade seem in any way > surprising to conventional astronomers. Of course, I feel it > unfortunate because my wish is to show you exactly where you went > wrong, excactly what you have failed to understand, so you can be > content that today's astronomers have *not* forgotten something > important. > > Everything fits; they can tell you where the marks should go on a > sundial with their theories, so they haven't lost the Equation of > Time, they can tell you when planets will go retrogade. And everything > is simple in their point of view; isn't the best way to explain how a > mechanical orrery works from the viewpoint of the table it's sitting > on, rather than from one of the moving globes in it? They see the > Solar System moving in just about the same way as such an orrery (a > geared model of the Solar System with orbits to scale but the planets > enlarged). > > John Savard- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 07 Jun 2007 17:35:39 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > A location on Earth does not rotate to noon in 24 hours > A location on Earth does not rotate to face noon in 24 hours > A location on Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours . Yes, because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so the correction from the Equation of Time changes slightly each day. > If anyone has any questions about the unequal noon cycle then I refer > them to Huygens treatise where all questions are answered - > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html . Since no one else seems to have come to the same conclusions as you about current astronomical thinking being wrong-headed *from* the writings of Huyghens or Copernicus, I'm afraid you're reading more into those writings than others do. quoting me: > > Not the Earth facing a distant star every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 > > seconds. That is still regular like clockwork - even if, Nature being > > imperfect, it isn't *quite* as regular as the best hydrogen masers. > > > > No. Only the Earth facing the Sun every 24 hours is compromised. > > Hence, the Equation of Time. > > > > Conclusion: thinking about the Earth's motions by taking the 23 hour, > > 56 minute, and 4 second period as one of the elements of those motions > > makes understanding them simpler. > > > > Indeed,there is another group who like to keep things simple based on > having the same problems with the 24 hour day and natural > phenomena,they are called the creationists.Personally,I find you lot > far worse because of your dominance but humanity has yet to grow out > of 'time travel' and other such nonsense based on that core error by > Flamsteed. . It's "now" everywhere. When it is 6 PM EST on the East Coast, it is 5PM CST in the Midwest, 4PM MST on the leeward side of the Rockies, and 3PM PST on the West Coast, but these are just different names for the same time; at one moment, the places on the Earth are in a 360 degree circle, so they are facing, in relation to the Sun, in all different directions, corresponding to all the 24 hours of the day. People call the same moment in time by different clock names simply because, where they live, the Sun is in a different direction, so the local time of day differs; for some, it is time to wake up, for others time to eat lunch, for others time to eat supper, and for others time to go to bed. The moment in time is the same, but the time of day is different. There is no "time travel" here. I find it extremely unlikely that the intelligent people who "dominate" astronomy and physics have made some terrible mistake in understanding the Solar System, comparable to the fallacies of Creationists. Instead, what I think has happened is that you have made some mistake in understanding what ordinary astronomers believe. Or, it could be that you do believe something about the Solar System that is not true, but which Copernicus and Huyghens do not appear, to you, to contradict. It could even be that the argument is not about facts, but is about semantic choices in describing the Solar System. It is unfortunate that you feel that it is not feasible for you to explain your view in more detail; I assure you, neither the Huyghens quote, nor the animated GIF of Mars going retrogade seem in any way surprising to conventional astronomers. Of course, I feel it unfortunate because my wish is to show you exactly where you went wrong, excactly what you have failed to understand, so you can be content that today's astronomers have *not* forgotten something important. Everything fits; they can tell you where the marks should go on a sundial with their theories, so they haven't lost the Equation of Time, they can tell you when planets will go retrogade. And everything is simple in their point of view; isn't the best way to explain how a mechanical orrery works from the viewpoint of the table it's sitting on, rather than from one of the moving globes in it? They see the Solar System moving in just about the same way as such an orrery (a geared model of the Solar System with orbits to scale but the planets enlarged). John Savard   Date: 07 Jun 2007 13:14:20 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 7, 1:41 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > What you believe or not is no concern of mine,the technical details of > > the human devised principles of the equable 24 hour day and > > subsequently equable hours.minutes seconds or any smaller subvision > > does not support the justification for the Earth's motions using a > > value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds. > > Does it need to? The sidereal day is the period with which the Earth > rotates compared to the stars in the sky; "astrological geometry" you > may call it, but that is enough to justify this as the actual angular > momentum of the Earth as a body in itself. And while the equable 24 > hour day may be a human invention, time - regular time, constant and > unchanging, not shifting as the Earth's local day and night cycles are > - is a reality of the Universe, reflected in everything from planetary > orbits to pulsars to the various types of light and microwaves emitted > by different kinds of atoms. > I would have thought it near impossible, after presenting the Huygen's treatise of the correlation between clocks and the axial cycle via the Equation of Time principles, that I still cannot get the simple affirmation of the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.Without any shadow of a doubt,the enjoyable way the 24 hour day was created out of the natural unequal noon cycle should be enough for anyone but the really intricate part is how the 'average' 24 hour day was overlaid on terrestrial geography where 4 minutes clock time represents 1 degree of geographical seperation. The facet of the human devised principle which keeps one 24 hour day elapsing into the next 24 hour day was transfered by the timekeeping heliocentric astronomers to a constant axial cycle.It never requires axial rotation to be constant and certainly not by using an external reference by the Sun let alone astrological geometry of the constellations.I am genuinely surprised that engineers would willingly ignore such the intricate construction where an older timekeeping system was applied to Copernican reasoning that axial rotation causes the axial cycle. > > There are no specialists,there are just people willing to ignore the > > most fundamental correlation in astronomical timekeeping - the 24 > > hour/ 360 deg equivalency.If you want a specialist then Huygens,who > > wrote the most extensive treatise on the correlation,is good enough - > > >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html > > Nobody is claiming that time should only change by 23 hours, 56 > minutes and 4 seconds when you cross the International Date Line. > > > You should read all about the Longitude story > > and how it was an incredible human achievement leading to the > > invention of accurate clocks. > > I am familiar with the history of determining longitude by comparing > an accurate clock with local solar time. Nobody here can say they are familiar with the Longitude story and then go on to justify the motions of the Earth and especially axially rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds. I refuse to believe that an entire group of people are willingly sticking by an obvious mistake made by Flamsteed but then again I have yet to see one person support Huygen's principles which express the only acceptable correlation between clocks and the axial cycle. How this contradicts Newton > and Flamsteed, or even how you claim it does, however, rather than > being perfectly consistent with their achievements, is mysterious to > me. > > > The confusion is all yours for there is nothing to support a > > 'sidereal' concept which has a location rotate to noon in 24 > > hours. > > Huh? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time A location on Earth does not rotate to noon in 24 hours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time A location on Earth does not rotate to face noon in 24 hours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time A location on Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours If anyone has any questions about the unequal noon cycle then I refer them to Huygens treatise where all questions are answered - http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html > > Maybe a teenager here will teach you insofar as there is nothing > > difficult about the idea that a location does not rotate to noon every > > 24 hours hence the Equation of Time > > Oh. > > If the Earth's orbit around the Sun were a perfect circle, *then* a > location rotating to a certain spot on the Zodiac every 23 hours, 56 > minutes, and 4 seconds *would also* imply a location rotating to noon > every 24 hours. > > But the Earth's orbit is an ellipse. > > So what suffers? > > Not the Earth facing a distant star every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 > seconds. That is still regular like clockwork - even if, Nature being > imperfect, it isn't *quite* as regular as the best hydrogen masers. > > No. Only the Earth facing the Sun every 24 hours is compromised. > Hence, the Equation of Time. > > Conclusion: thinking about the Earth's motions by taking the 23 hour, > 56 minute, and 4 second period as one of the elements of those motions > makes understanding them simpler. > Indeed,there is another group who like to keep things simple based on having the same problems with the 24 hour day and natural phenomena,they are called the creationists.Personally,I find you lot far worse because of your dominance but humanity has yet to grow out of 'time travel' and other such nonsense based on that core error by Flamsteed. > And so bringing the Equation of Time into this shows exactly why your > notions are completely wrong, and Newton and Flamsteed and everybody > else are right! > > > `To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much > > they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.`` > > Unless you really want to maintain that the Sun is right, and our > cesium beam clocks are wrong. > > John Savard   Date: 06 Jun 2007 17:10:14 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > There are no specialists,there are just people willing to ignore the > most fundamental correlation in astronomical timekeeping - the 24 > hour/ 360 deg equivalency. Of course 24 hours are equivalent to 360 degrees of longitude. The Earth is a globe, and on it the Equator, and the other parallels of latitude, are circles. The time of day at a given location is determined by the apparent position of the Sun in the sky. If we take a day at one of the Equinoxes for simplicity, whether Vernal or Autumnal, then Noon is the local time at the point on a parallel of latitude that is most closely towards the Sun. Sunset, or 6 PM, is at the location (viewed from the North) that is 90 degrees counter-clockwise from there. Midnight is at the location 180 degrees away from there. Sunrise, or 6 AM, is at the location 270 degrees counter-clockwise from there. But all this is true at one *instant* of time, on a frozen Earth. That 24 hours later, the Earth will have rotated slightly more than 360 degrees, but will have advanced by very nearly the same amount in its orbit around the Sun, making 24 hours, and not 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, the time it takes for a day to pass, is not in any way contradicted by this. John Savard   Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:41:40 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > What you believe or not is no concern of mine,the technical details of > the human devised principles of the equable 24 hour day and > subsequently equable hours.minutes seconds or any smaller subvision > does not support the justification for the Earth's motions using a > value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds. Does it need to? The sidereal day is the period with which the Earth rotates compared to the stars in the sky; "astrological geometry" you may call it, but that is enough to justify this as the actual angular momentum of the Earth as a body in itself. And while the equable 24 hour day may be a human invention, time - regular time, constant and unchanging, not shifting as the Earth's local day and night cycles are - is a reality of the Universe, reflected in everything from planetary orbits to pulsars to the various types of light and microwaves emitted by different kinds of atoms. > There are no specialists,there are just people willing to ignore the > most fundamental correlation in astronomical timekeeping - the 24 > hour/ 360 deg equivalency.If you want a specialist then Huygens,who > wrote the most extensive treatise on the correlation,is good enough - > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html Nobody is claiming that time should only change by 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds when you cross the International Date Line. > You should read all about the Longitude story > and how it was an incredible human achievement leading to the > invention of accurate clocks. I am familiar with the history of determining longitude by comparing an accurate clock with local solar time. How this contradicts Newton and Flamsteed, or even how you claim it does, however, rather than being perfectly consistent with their achievements, is mysterious to me. > The confusion is all yours for there is nothing to support a > 'sidereal' concept which has a location rotate to noon in 24 > hours. Huh? > Maybe a teenager here will teach you insofar as there is nothing > difficult about the idea that a location does not rotate to noon every > 24 hours hence the Equation of Time Oh. If the Earth's orbit around the Sun were a perfect circle, *then* a location rotating to a certain spot on the Zodiac every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds *would also* imply a location rotating to noon every 24 hours. But the Earth's orbit is an ellipse. So what suffers? Not the Earth facing a distant star every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. That is still regular like clockwork - even if, Nature being imperfect, it isn't *quite* as regular as the best hydrogen masers. No. Only the Earth facing the Sun every 24 hours is compromised. Hence, the Equation of Time. Conclusion: thinking about the Earth's motions by taking the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second period as one of the elements of those motions makes understanding them simpler. And so bringing the Equation of Time into this shows exactly why your notions are completely wrong, and Newton and Flamsteed and everybody else are right! > `To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much > they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.`` Unless you really want to maintain that the Sun is right, and our cesium beam clocks are wrong. John Savard   Date: 06 Jun 2007 10:05:14 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 6, 1:32 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > If you truly believe that a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value > > represents the natural axial cycle then good for you but that is > > going against human nature and the first tenet of all astronomers > > that the natural cycle from noon to noon is unequal.This matter cannot > > wait . > > . > While I believe that the sidereal day is *a* natural cycle, that it is > a cycle only of interest to specialists, What you believe or not is no concern of mine,the technical details of the human devised principles of the equable 24 hour day and subsequently equable hours.minutes seconds or any smaller subvision does not support the justification for the Earth's motions using a value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds. There are no specialists,there are just people willing to ignore the most fundamental correlation in astronomical timekeeping - the 24 hour/ 360 deg equivalency.If you want a specialist then Huygens,who wrote the most extensive treatise on the correlation,is good enough - http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html and that the 24 hour day - > which is in fact unequal in nature - is the one that fits with human > nature is something I agree with you about. > The natural noon cycle is unequal and the human devised correction known as the Equation of Time not only creates the 24 hour day but uses noon to keep each of these 24 hour days elapsing seam=F8lessly into the next.Astronomers and many people not associated with astronomy generally are familiar with this principle where the 24 hours of Monday elapse into the 24 hours of Tuesday ect..This average 24 hour cycle was exploited by heliocentric astronomers in applying it to the concept of a constant axial cycle hence the minutes for each degree of geographical seperation.You should read all about the Longitude story and how it was an incredible human achievement leading to the invention of accurate clocks. > I've always felt that tables of the Solar System should include the > average day in the conventional (or synodic) sense of each planet, > instead of (or at least in addition to) the siderial axial rotation > period, because the former is what people think of as a day, so if > only the latter is given, people will confuse the two. > > John Savard Should anyone care to read the wonderful explanation of Huygens in determining natural noon and applying the Equation of Time to generate the equable 24 hour cycle they will scarcely believe what occured in the late 17th century when they linked axial rotation directly to astrological geometry and beleive that the Sun returns to noon every 24 hours exactly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time The confusion is all yours for there is nothing to support a 'sidereal' concept which has a location rotate to noon in 24 hours.Maybe a teenager here will teach you insofar as there is nothing difficult about the idea that a location does not rotate to noon every 24 hours hence the Equation of Time or rather,the brilliant men who created the equable 24 hour day out of recognising that no two noon cycle are equal.Perhaps you would like to hear it from Huygens - `To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.`` " Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation " Huygens Again,this is a serious,serious matter,the most important matter in all science for those with the good sense to know it.   Date: 05 Jun 2007 16:32:49 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > If you truly believe that a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value > represents the natural axial cycle then good for you but that is > going against human nature and the first tenet of all astronomers > that the natural cycle from noon to noon is unequal.This matter cannot > wait . . While I believe that the sidereal day is *a* natural cycle, that it is a cycle only of interest to specialists, and that the 24 hour day - which is in fact unequal in nature - is the one that fits with human nature is something I agree with you about. I've always felt that tables of the Solar System should include the average day in the conventional (or synodic) sense of each planet, instead of (or at least in addition to) the siderial axial rotation period, because the former is what people think of as a day, so if only the latter is given, people will confuse the two. John Savard   Date: 05 Jun 2007 11:50:05 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 5, 6:49 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > I cannot,cannot,cannot account for why people > > are choosing a dog of a concept which fixes axial rotation directly to > > astrological geometry in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec even as they enjoy the > > benefits of the original timekeeping system of the Equation of Time > > and the human devised equable 24 hour cycle. > > . > Since the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second cycle is a natural cycle - It is a calendrical cycle meaning a 1461 day cycle split into 3 cycles of 365 days and 1 cycle of 366 days.The idea that a star returns to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds earlier requires a 86 400 leap second correction, otherwise known as the Feb 29th leap day correction,to work. Good luck to the numbskulls who think that they can justify the Earth's axial and orbital motions using the calendar system where the attempt to fit 4 orbital cycles into a 365/366 day scheme but then again you are the one who thinks that the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second/ 360 degrees is a natural cycle. the > stars in the night sky are part of nature - and is equable to a high > degree of accuracy, and since considering the motion of the Solar > System from a viewpoint which does not follow the Earth's revolution > around the Sun lets us decompose the motions of the Earth into > individual simple motions - so that apparent retrogades are indeed > caused by the faster Earth overtaking the slower Mars, or the faster > Venus travelling in the opposite direction because we are looking upon > its orbit from the outside - it is unclear to almost everyone here > what makes this perspective a "dog of a concept". > > John Savard It is difficult to imagine that an entire group of people would believe that the 23 hour 56 minute 04 sec value based on using a clock to justify the Earth's axial and orbital motions but unfortunately this is the case.You and your colleagues have received no objections to your viewpoint,not a single sentence raised in outrage against the destruction of the Western astronomical tradition and that is saying something,not just the clock system which keeps in sync with the axial cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation but the heliocentric reasoning from which it emerged. On one side is a single error made by one person,in this case John Flamsteed ,and on the other side are the panoramic Equation of Time principles and the Copernican heliocentric reasoning representing two of the greatest known human achievements in the investigation of natural phenomena.A successful civilisation would not do this to its own heritage,it would not willingly continue to ignore that a terrible error occured and carried on as though nothing happened yet this is the case here.Even allowing for the vast majority of theorists and magnifying guys ,there has to be some who are familiar with the Longitude story and how clocks resolved it,especially with the text of Huygens before them. What is it that people hope to achieve by being silent or ignoring a problem for surely if destroying some of the great astronomical insights is not bad enough,the real problem exists in using the Earth's motions to tie in with climatology and the small matter of 'global warming' and it cannot be done using a 'sidereal' justification. The problem is huge,far greater than the sum total of its parts and although it seems impossible that so much could rest on a single error represented by a single value,I assure everyone here that it is that simple - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml If you truly believe that a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value represents the natural axial cycle then good for you but that is going against human nature and the first tenet of all astronomers that the natural cycle from noon to noon is unequal.This matter cannot wait .   Date: 04 Jun 2007 21:49:01 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > I cannot,cannot,cannot account for why people > are choosing a dog of a concept which fixes axial rotation directly to > astrological geometry in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec even as they enjoy the > benefits of the original timekeeping system of the Equation of Time > and the human devised equable 24 hour cycle. . Since the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second cycle is a natural cycle - the stars in the night sky are part of nature - and is equable to a high degree of accuracy, and since considering the motion of the Solar System from a viewpoint which does not follow the Earth's revolution around the Sun lets us decompose the motions of the Earth into individual simple motions - so that apparent retrogades are indeed caused by the faster Earth overtaking the slower Mars, or the faster Venus travelling in the opposite direction because we are looking upon its orbit from the outside - it is unclear to almost everyone here what makes this perspective a "dog of a concept". John Savard   Date: 04 Jun 2007 10:16:04 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 3, 5:07 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > The Equation of Time system represents a daily 'leap' correction that > > continuously keeps the 24 hour day fixed to natural noon and visa > > versa > > Yes, that is correct. > Now you have learned that part,you can go on to put more detail to the Equation of Time system. The Total length of the noon cycle varies which is why the Equation of Time is required to create the human devised equable 24 hour day.People like Flamsteed,Newton and the disciples of late 17th century astrological geometry perish on the rocks of what constitutes the Total length of the daily cycle and mix it up with daylight \darkness asymmetry. At the Equator where daylight\darkness remains constant the Equation of Time is still required as everwhere else North or South of Equator,at least as long as the Sun is visible to make the neccessary noon determination.This fact gets rid of the nonsense of a 23 1/2 Deg axial tilt component introduced by Flamsteed via the analemma hoax.The Total length of the natural cycle is solely determined from observation of natural noon. "Draw a Meridian line upon a floor (the manner of doing which is sufficiently known; and note, that the utmost exactness herein is not necessary:) and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table. " http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html The equable 24 hour day and subsequently equable hours ,minutes ,seconds or any smaller division will always remain the same due to the way my astronomical ancestors created the system.They never fixed clocks directly to axial rotation,that was done by the 17th century numbskulls,what they did was overlay the Equation of Time system and the 'average' 24 hour day on top of terrestrial geometry/geography and treated the axial cycle as constant,specifically 15 degrees per hour making exactly 24 hours/360 degrees. So what if Flamsteed made a terrible error in principle,the fact remains that to enjoy the heliocentric system of Copernicus,Kepler and the commentaries of Galileo and Huygens,,it is implicit that the foundations which correlate clocks to the axial cycle and terrestrail geography is and always will be 24 hours/360 degrees or 4 minutes for each degree of geographical seperation. Being in the position as the only heliocentric astronomer here is no cause for celebration,as I never considered any of the material as anything other than a shared astronomical heritage and a really enjoyable one at that,I cannot,cannot,cannot account for why people are choosing a dog of a concept which fixes axial rotation directly to astrological geometry in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec even as they enjoy the benefits of the original timekeeping system of the Equation of Time and the human devised equable 24 hour cycle. > > I would insist that I am not overstating that the situation has > > reached a dangerous level insofar as nobody appears the slightest bit > > interested in how the 24 hour day is a human devised creation never > > mind its application to terrestrial longitudes. > > You are correct; the 24 hour day is a human creation. The sun comes up > at intervals that are *roughly* equal to 24 hours, but a time scale > that averages this out, and keeps rigidly uniform intervals of time, > whether on an hourglass, a pendulum clock, or now an atomic clock, is > something that humans have devised. > > Of course, since this uniform time is, for example, "the independent > variable in the differential equations for the Sun's apparent motion", > although the 24 hour day itself is a human creation, uniform > mathematical time does correspond to a natural reality as well. > > Of the Earth's natural motions, the sidereal one involving the return > of a star (or, since the galaxy does rotate, better yet a blip in the > cosmic microwave background) to a meridian is the one which most > closely approximates uniformity; it is still disturbed by some > dynamical factors (i.e. UT1-UT2), but the inaccuracies are much > smaller than those that one copes with by means of the Equation of > Time. > > Conventional astronomers are doing a very good job of "saving the > phenomena" when it comes to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. > If you're objecting to their reductionist perspective, of taking > uniform time and single motions referenced to (approximately) inertial > frames as fundamental, and the actual phenomenon of the Sun's motions > in our sky as a derived consequence, I'm afraid that action can't be > taken on the basis of that objection - we have to start from the > simple parts, or the math would be too complicated and we couldn't > obtain the answers we need. > > John Savard     Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:51:18 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 10, 3:57 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > You do not,as representative of the entire group here, acknowledge > > that the correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial > > longitudes is 24 hours/360 degrees and adopt an alternative value of > > 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds to justify the Earth's axial and > > orbital motions. > > The correlation between time and terrestrial longitudes is indeed 24 > hours to 360 degrees. > The correlation between clocks ,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is 24 hours/360 degrees after the Equation of Time is applied.The fact is that the majority view expressed by the big institutions fail to recognise the most basic astronomical cycle of all,that no two noon cycles are the same - " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html I most certainly feel the loss of even the treatise of Huygens in his magnificent explanation of the Equation of Time principles which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle thereby allowing clocks to be used as measuring distance corresponding to 4 minutes for each degree of geographical seperation. > At any one instant, different places around the Earth at different > longitudes face in different directions compared to the Sun - and it > is facing to the Sun, which occurs, as you note, in approximately 24 > hours, modified by the Equation of Time, that determines the time of > day. > The Equation of Time principle which generates the 24 hour day and keeps these 24 hour cycles elapsing into each other (Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday ect) is so taken for granted that nobody really considers how it came about let alone its application to terrestrial longitudes,the calendar system,the invention of accurate clocks ect. Even allowing for the false correlation created by Flamsteed and subsequently how it is tied into the Newtonian agenda,the fact that not a single person cares to acknowledge that no two noon cycle are alike is about as dismal as it gets. You want the noon cycle to be 24 hours then good for you but it represents a vandalism of an astronomical heritage that crosses the work of so many careful men over so many civilisations.You want your 'sidereal time' and make up whatever story you need to support it but I assure you it is an undignified mess fit for those who know no better - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time > If you subtract the Earth's orbital motion from its axial motion, you > obtain a motion with a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. > This serves some special purposes, such as pointing telescopes at > stars. Also, because it is the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit > that causes the Equation of Time, this motion does not reflect that > effect. > > > There is nothing reasonable in what you do or say and > > it is so counter-productive that it is rotting Western civilisation by > > exploiting the intricate,delicate and stable timekeeping and > > structural astronomy and turning it into a convoluted mess .You choose > > any story you like to reach whatever conclusion you choose but that is > > and never was astronomy. > > Rather than commenting on what you think is astronomy, I will simply > note that it is good physics to separate out the angular momentum of > the Earth's axial rotation from that of its orbit, and that > furthermore the Earth's angular momentum would be referenced to the > unmoving background, not the rotating line from the Sun to the Earth. > I look at all these comments on global warming in the popular media while I know too well that the same scientists cannot even give the correct explanation for the seasons using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.The Equation of Time plays a role in seperating the inequalities in the Earth Keplerian orbits from the constant axial cycle but when the numbskulls in the 17th century vandalised the Equation of Time principles they had to introduce a variable axial tilt to the Earth in order to substitute the astronomical principle of the variations in the Total length of the noon cycle for an abysmal hemispherical treatment of daylight/darkness asymmetry - http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html Given that nobody wants to accept responsibility for the errors in the late 17th century ,out of incapacity or indoictrination,the price for retaining the correlation between the Earth's motion of the distance stars is becoming vary expensive.It means that no productive work can be done in meshing astronomy with climatology and that is incredible,for all the concerns about global warming and climate,nobody here has the courage or the ability to recognise that the intellectual standard for working with planetary motions is creationistlike in content and character. > Apparently you object, perhaps as something impious, to astronomers, > instead of merely passively observing the motions of the heavenly > bodies, to - without any "authorization" from a Higher Power - treat > them as though they were mere physical objects, subject to the same > laws of motion as billiard balls on a pool table. If that is indeed > your objection to our "empiricism", you will have no luck in > deflecting Western Civilization from its current course. > > John Savard I would have to believe in the goodness of people and that they would not willingly suffer to see the achievements of our ancestors vandalised for pretensious and counter-productive nonsense.The conquest of astronomy by a small group of people who exploit the intricate and exquisite astronomical principles and turn it into a convoluted linguistic mess is most especially concentrated in that single value where the natural noon cycle and the human devised cycle of the 24 hour day meet.I can show where the 24 hour day applied to terrestrial longitudes is a direct result of Copernican reasong but unfortunately nobody wants to recognise this shared astronomical heritage and there is nothing I can do about that. Western civilisation went from geocentric to heliocentric to a sub- geocentric astrological geometry so I have every reason to point in the direction where Western astronomy really is vibrant.If you want to wnader down the road of time travel and warped space then good for you but there should be those who have more self respect than to insult themselves with the spurious notions of early 20th century guys with too much time on their hands. Most people appreciate the precision and care needed in their respective jobs and that lives are often dependent on the responsibility of those in authority,especially in the engineering and medical disciplines.The lazy and indulgent behavior of a few people who indoctrinate humanity into cartoon concepts under the name of 'astronomy' is downright shocking, even for this well shocked mind and the problem is the sheer dominance of these harmful concepts.I choose the road wher it is easier to show that the actual insights of ancestors are enjoyable and easily accessible using modern imaging and graphics rather than beat people over the head with their lack of courage and responsibility but unfortunately there seems to be no motivation other than the same astrophotographic/magnification exercise. Whatever you hope to achieve with 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value I do not know but I assure you that it does not exist as a foundation for the Earth's motions even if Newton built on it.I offered to allow you to freely discuss what you are going to do without the 'theory of gravity' or rather terrestrial ballistics applied to planetary motion via astrological geometry but obviously you are happy enough with that cartoon concept.   Date: 04 Jun 2007 00:29:06 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 3, 4:31 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > Interesting graph of the length of the day as measured > by the earth's rotation here:http://hpiers.obspm.fr/ The lower graph (not the upper one) mostly shows the predictable effects of the lunisolar tides. The interesting parts of earth rotation on that time scale don't show up until you remove the tidal component. They let you do that at http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/products/combined/C04.html   Date: 03 Jun 2007 23:31:27 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Interesting graph of the length of the day as measured by the earth's rotation here: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/ Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:12:52 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Guy Macon wrote: > Quadibloc wrote: . > >Dang! That's what I get for believing everything I read on Wikipedia! . > When I see an error on Wikipedia, I simply correct it. If I am certain it is an error, and it is a matter on which I am fully competent to take action, I will do so as well. The color of Super-Girl's costume in her original and only appearance, and in subsequent reprints of that story, was a matter of which I had sound knowledge: her costume was originally blue with a red skirt, as shown in the cover illustration they gave, and became orange in the early reprints to avoid confusion of this heroine, brought into existence by Jimmy Olsen's wish on a magic totem, with Supergirl (Kara Zor-El). John Savard   Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:08:51 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Andrew Smallshaw wrote: > But do you really want to account for the galactic rotation? It > might be a long time off, but do you really want a system that puts > noon somewhere in the middle of the night in half a galactic > rotation? . To the extent that I would support accounting for the galactic rotation, it would be in order to *avoid* having noon somewhere in the middle of the night in half a galactic rotation. I see no evil, for example, in increasing the length of the sidereal day by one one-hundredth of a second, so that our clock drives will be corrected for precession when doing astrophotography! Noon in the middle of the night in half a galactic rotation would only happen if we accounted for the galactic rotation in one place (when setting the length of a sidereal day) and failed to account for it in another (when converting from that to a synodic day of ordinary timekeeping); that is, if we took it into account wrongly. John Savard   Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:54:35 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc wrote: >Of the Earth's natural motions, the sidereal one involving the return >of a star (or, since the galaxy does rotate, better yet a blip in the >cosmic microwave background) to a meridian is the one which most >closely approximates uniformity Sorry for discussing astonomy in an astronomy newsgroup, but do we know that the cosmic microwave background isn't shifting about? Perhaps the most distant know Quasar would be a better choice. :) Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:50:15 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc wrote: >Dang! That's what I get for believing everything I read on Wikipedia! When I see an error on Wikipedia, I simply correct it. Take a look at the bottom entry at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System ]. I will correct the main entry at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps ] in a week or so if nobody objects or does the edit for me. Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 03 Jun 2007 08:07:08 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > The Equation of Time system represents a daily 'leap' correction that > continuously keeps the 24 hour day fixed to natural noon and visa > versa Yes, that is correct. > I would insist that I am not overstating that the situation has > reached a dangerous level insofar as nobody appears the slightest bit > interested in how the 24 hour day is a human devised creation never > mind its application to terrestrial longitudes. You are correct; the 24 hour day is a human creation. The sun comes up at intervals that are *roughly* equal to 24 hours, but a time scale that averages this out, and keeps rigidly uniform intervals of time, whether on an hourglass, a pendulum clock, or now an atomic clock, is something that humans have devised. Of course, since this uniform time is, for example, "the independent variable in the differential equations for the Sun's apparent motion", although the 24 hour day itself is a human creation, uniform mathematical time does correspond to a natural reality as well. Of the Earth's natural motions, the sidereal one involving the return of a star (or, since the galaxy does rotate, better yet a blip in the cosmic microwave background) to a meridian is the one which most closely approximates uniformity; it is still disturbed by some dynamical factors (i.e. UT1-UT2), but the inaccuracies are much smaller than those that one copes with by means of the Equation of Time. Conventional astronomers are doing a very good job of "saving the phenomena" when it comes to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. If you're objecting to their reductionist perspective, of taking uniform time and single motions referenced to (approximately) inertial frames as fundamental, and the actual phenomenon of the Sun's motions in our sky as a derived consequence, I'm afraid that action can't be taken on the basis of that objection - we have to start from the simple parts, or the math would be too complicated and we couldn't obtain the answers we need. John Savard     Date: 03 Jun 2007 20:20:01 From: Andrew Smallshaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 2007-06-03, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > > Of the Earth's natural motions, the sidereal one involving the return > of a star (or, since the galaxy does rotate, better yet a blip in the > cosmic microwave background) to a meridian is the one which most > closely approximates uniformity; it is still disturbed by some > dynamical factors (i.e. UT1-UT2), but the inaccuracies are much > smaller than those that one copes with by means of the Equation of > Time. But do you really want to account for the galactic rotation? It might be a long time off, but do you really want a system that puts noon somewhere in the middle of the night in half a galactic rotation? -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org   Date: 03 Jun 2007 06:40:26 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 3, 2:11 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:51:18 -0700, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > . > > >Divide the year into ten parts of 37 and 36 days in alternation. Start > > >from March 1 to keep things simple in leap years. > . > > >For the first 33 1/3 days of each of those parts, sweep increments of > > >100 milliseconds "under the rug" by adding one millisecond to the last > > >second of each eight-hour period. This would allow a time scale to be > > >kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time, and it would also mean > > >that, most of the time, a time signal would consist of a steady stream > > >of SI seconds; the long seconds would come at predictable intervals. > . > > I think it's easier just to divide the year up into an even number of > > uniform length seconds for civil time. The thing is, I can't think of > > any reason that civil time needs to be particularly accurate. We can > > just agree that "accurate" civil time is within 1/10 second or so of the > > correct time (as derived from the atomic standard), and set our clocks > > now and then to keep it that way. No leap seconds necessary. > > . > Well, I couldn't think of reasons why it had to be particularly > accurate. But it turns out that the WWV signal includes a field called > DUT, giving UT1-UTC to an accuracy of 1/10 of a second. > > That's because before we used leap seconds, the time scale was kept > within 1/10 of mean solar time, using a frequency offset to change the > average length of the second plus occasional corrections that involved > adding, or subtracting, 1/10 of a second - 100 milliseconds - from a > second. > > The frequency offset meant that it was awkward to use the standard > time signals for frequency measurements, and the corrections of 100 > milliseconds came too frequently. So that's why the old system was > considered to be 'unworkable'. > > Because there are applications that need a very precise standard of > time, tied to the atomic second, I was trying to figure out: how could > the "official" time used by those who need such precision be changed > so that the rest of us - who do just set our clocks now and then to > keep them in step with the official time - could get into step, within > 1/10 of a second, or 1/100 of a second, or whatever might be required, > just by setting our clocks now and then? > > Of course, "the rest of us" needs some qualification. Those of us who > set our clocks so that we will get up in the morning at the right time > never had needed to worry about leap seconds. > > But even people who are trying to maintain critical time > synchronization over computer networks aren't using rubidium > oscillators - with a very few exceptions. At best, they're using > quartz crystals in thermally controlled ovens. And even those are only > accurate to 2/3 of a second per year. > > If the official time has leap seconds *in* it, then setting their > clocks by WWV every now and then won't eliminate the need to handle > the leap second when it comes. But if we can spread the leap second > out in a more even way over the official time, then periodic > resetting of one's clock to keep it in step will also take care of the > discrepancy between the SI second and the earth's rotation. > > At least I've thought of a way to do it a bit more simply. Let's > decide on 100ms corrections on a *monthly* basis, and add in the extra > milliseconds at the end of every six hours for the first 25 days of > the month. That way there's no need to work from a new calendar of 10 > months that alternate between 37 and 36 days in length! > > John Savard- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I do not know why people do not get how the Equation of Time correction works and especially as Huygens explains it so well - " Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html The Equation of Time system represents a daily 'leap' correction that continuously keeps the 24 hour day fixed to natural noon and visa versa hence the use of accurate clocks to determine a correlation between 4 minutes clock time and 1 degree of the daily cycle and how the system keeps each 24 hour day elapsing seamlessly into the next 24 hour day .Refusing to recognise this system or rather taking a stance of - "In the beginning was ephemeris time" without qualifying the astronomical background would represent such a steep intellectual descent of humanity that not even comparisons with the creationists would satisfy an accurate assessment of the situation. I would insist that I am not overstating that the situation has reached a dangerous level insofar as nobody appears the slightest bit interested in how the 24 hour day is a human devised creation never mind its application to terrestrial longitudes.This thumbsucking about the length of 'seconds' is irrelevent when familiarity with the way the equable 24 hour day refers to equable hours,minutes and seconds and even if I am sympathetic to your indoctrinated belief that axial 'constant ' rotation can be directly inferred through the return of a distant star to a meridian,this correlation first expressed by Flamsteed has been shown to be untenable.     Date: 10 Jun 2007 06:57:42 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > You do not,as representative of the entire group here, acknowledge > that the correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial > longitudes is 24 hours/360 degrees and adopt an alternative value of > 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds to justify the Earth's axial and > orbital motions. The correlation between time and terrestrial longitudes is indeed 24 hours to 360 degrees. At any one instant, different places around the Earth at different longitudes face in different directions compared to the Sun - and it is facing to the Sun, which occurs, as you note, in approximately 24 hours, modified by the Equation of Time, that determines the time of day. If you subtract the Earth's orbital motion from its axial motion, you obtain a motion with a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. This serves some special purposes, such as pointing telescopes at stars. Also, because it is the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit that causes the Equation of Time, this motion does not reflect that effect. > There is nothing reasonable in what you do or say and > it is so counter-productive that it is rotting Western civilisation by > exploiting the intricate,delicate and stable timekeeping and > structural astronomy and turning it into a convoluted mess .You choose > any story you like to reach whatever conclusion you choose but that is > and never was astronomy. Rather than commenting on what you think is astronomy, I will simply note that it is good physics to separate out the angular momentum of the Earth's axial rotation from that of its orbit, and that furthermore the Earth's angular momentum would be referenced to the unmoving background, not the rotating line from the Sun to the Earth. Apparently you object, perhaps as something impious, to astronomers, instead of merely passively observing the motions of the heavenly bodies, to - without any "authorization" from a Higher Power - treat them as though they were mere physical objects, subject to the same laws of motion as billiard balls on a pool table. If that is indeed your objection to our "empiricism", you will have no luck in deflecting Western Civilization from its current course. John Savard   Date: 03 Jun 2007 05:11:11 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:51:18 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: . > >Divide the year into ten parts of 37 and 36 days in alternation. Start > >from March 1 to keep things simple in leap years. . > >For the first 33 1/3 days of each of those parts, sweep increments of > >100 milliseconds "under the rug" by adding one millisecond to the last > >second of each eight-hour period. This would allow a time scale to be > >kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time, and it would also mean > >that, most of the time, a time signal would consist of a steady stream > >of SI seconds; the long seconds would come at predictable intervals. . > I think it's easier just to divide the year up into an even number of > uniform length seconds for civil time. The thing is, I can't think of > any reason that civil time needs to be particularly accurate. We can > just agree that "accurate" civil time is within 1/10 second or so of the > correct time (as derived from the atomic standard), and set our clocks > now and then to keep it that way. No leap seconds necessary. . Well, I couldn't think of reasons why it had to be particularly accurate. But it turns out that the WWV signal includes a field called DUT, giving UT1-UTC to an accuracy of 1/10 of a second. That's because before we used leap seconds, the time scale was kept within 1/10 of mean solar time, using a frequency offset to change the average length of the second plus occasional corrections that involved adding, or subtracting, 1/10 of a second - 100 milliseconds - from a second. The frequency offset meant that it was awkward to use the standard time signals for frequency measurements, and the corrections of 100 milliseconds came too frequently. So that's why the old system was considered to be 'unworkable'. Because there are applications that need a very precise standard of time, tied to the atomic second, I was trying to figure out: how could the "official" time used by those who need such precision be changed so that the rest of us - who do just set our clocks now and then to keep them in step with the official time - could get into step, within 1/10 of a second, or 1/100 of a second, or whatever might be required, just by setting our clocks now and then? Of course, "the rest of us" needs some qualification. Those of us who set our clocks so that we will get up in the morning at the right time never had needed to worry about leap seconds. But even people who are trying to maintain critical time synchronization over computer networks aren't using rubidium oscillators - with a very few exceptions. At best, they're using quartz crystals in thermally controlled ovens. And even those are only accurate to 2/3 of a second per year. If the official time has leap seconds *in* it, then setting their clocks by WWV every now and then won't eliminate the need to handle the leap second when it comes. But if we can spread the leap second out in a more even way over the official time, then periodic resetting of one's clock to keep it in step will also take care of the discrepancy between the SI second and the earth's rotation. At least I've thought of a way to do it a bit more simply. Let's decide on 100ms corrections on a *monthly* basis, and add in the extra milliseconds at the end of every six hours for the first 25 days of the month. That way there's no need to work from a new calendar of 10 months that alternate between 37 and 36 days in length! John Savard   Date: 03 Jun 2007 04:50:26 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 2, 10:30 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > Thanks again for the creationist viewpoint of astronomy and > > timekeeping,should anybody take the time to comprehend how the 24 hour > > day emeged from the natural noon cycle and from there to the > > heliocentric adaption to the axial cycle and promote the gorgeous > > system to the best of their abilities,they can genuinely call > > themselves astronomers. > > . > Well, of course I was just making a rhetorical flourish - Ephemeris > Time was simply at the beginning of a particular phase of timekeeping, > where it was necessary to rely on other phenomena, such as the orbital > motions of the Earth, the Moon, and other planets, to provide an > accurate uniform scale of time, rather than the Earth's axial > rotation. > The creation of equable hours ,minutes and seconds is contingent on the creation of the equable 24 hour day and that human devised standard pace emerges from equalising the total variations in the natural noon cycle to a 24 hour cycle by a procedure known as the Equation of Time consequently there is no need to appeal to the Earth's axial and orbital motions in determining how the 24 hour day emerged for this human achievement existed long before the Earth's motions were discovered. The heliocentric adaption is simply to overlay the average 24 hour day on the axial cycle as though it were constant hence you can split the Earth into equal degrees of longitude and then use a clock to register the standard pace of the equable 24 hour day as a geographical seperation of 4 minutes for each degree of geographical seperation.Of course you need intelligence and a small effort to become familiar with one of the greatest known human achievements that we use day after day. > Of course people told time by the Sun originally. First in a general > way, with distinctions between morning, noon, afternoon, and night by > observation, and then more precisely, with instruments from Stonehenge > to sundials. > Are you convincing yourself of the myth needed to support a false correlation of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds-\ 360 degrees then be my guest,there are millions just like you.I required a single individual who could work from the 24 hour\360 degree correlation between clocks and the axial cycle as a means to affirm Copernican heliocentricity but that did not happen. > While I don't subscribe to your position on the matters on which you > have expressed concern (and, in fact, still have some difficulty in > nailing down your precise objection to the _status quo_), as someone > concerned with the importance of the natural 24 hour day, you are in a > position to appreciate the fact that I am proposing a way to keep our > clocks synchronized to the natural 24 hour day. > There is no such thing as the 'natural' 24 hour day,there is just the average 24 hour cycle created by my astronomical ancestors by equalising the variations in the natural unequal cycle. I would once have thought you were mocking the great timekeeping systems that are used day in and day out or rather that you were getting some sort of perverse satisfaction from adhering to a blantantly destructive 'sidereal' justification but now I just do not mind.The clarity of thinking by Huygens in respect to how the 24 hour day is derived from natural noon and the Equation of Time correction and from there to the application to the longitude correlation between clocks,terrestrial geometry and the axial cycle should be enough for anyone to admire but obviously it has not struck an intellectual or intutive chord so far. > Because the length of the atomic second is too short for 86,400 of > them to make a 24 hour day, we have had to insert "leap seconds" into > the time we use. Some people have said that we should just dump the > leap second, and let our clocks drift, very slowly, away from their > relationship to the apparent Sun. It would, after all, take perhaps > about 40,000 years before our clocks said 12 noon when it was really > 11:30 by a sundial, so who cares, they apparently argue. > It presents a problem for me that the people who profess an interest in astronomy,both structural and timekeeping,are the most careless and destructive with its principles,in fact,they represent an astrological point of view. > Instead, I am proposing a scheme whereby the people with rubidium- > driven or cesium driven clocks will still have to remember to tell > them "this year has a leap second", but the people who only have > quartz clocks - even the oven controlled crystal clocks are only > accurate to 2/3 of a second per year - will have the leap second taken > care of as they periodically reset them to the correct time from > standards giving the civil time by my proposed scheme. > > So we avoid doom and gloom from people forgetting to keep the clocks > of the Internet in order, *and* we keep the time scale in line with > the real 24 hour day. > > John Savard Flamsteed was the first guy to attempt to use clocks to determine the Earth's motions,a particularly awful way to approach the matter as can be seen when handling the principles which support heliocentricity by splitting axial and orbital motions to account for observed celestial phenomena. You should be thrilled that even though I am correct in the way I extracted the 24 hour\360 degree correlation via the Equation of Time principles overlaid on Copernican reasoning,the way I express it is appalling and I am the first to admit that without any excuses.   Date: 02 Jun 2007 20:51:18 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second I wrote: > Anyways: a while back, there was a message in these newsgroups about > how a group, shrouding its activities in mystery, came forwards with a > proposal to just forget about leap seconds. We could always adjust our > clocks an hour at a time, if we really felt strongly about wanting > local 12 noon to happen around lunchtime. > > I don't think the mass of humanity really considers it so important to > be "modern" and "scientific" that they would willingly allow the clock > to be independent of the real time of day. > > But it is true that leap seconds are awkward and confusing. I would > like to suggest an alternative for those whose concerns are precise > ones. . In meeting objections to my proposed scheme, I've looked up more information about the practice of timekeeping, particularly prior to the adoption of our present UTC scheme in 1972. Prior to 1972, with a combination of frequency offsets, and jumps of 100 milliseconds added within a second, the time scale was kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time; since then, radio time signals have included an indication of the difference between UTC and mean solar time to a precision of 0.1 second as a substitute for this. This kind of relation between the standard time and mean solar time was useful for visual astronomy and celestial navigation. Also, frequency offsets, or any change in the length of the civil second, makes it hard to calibrate the frequency of equipment using standard time signals. Considering these factors, one arguing for a time scale less closely tied to atomic time than my proposal, and the other arguing for a closer tie to atomic time, I've come up with an alternate scheme. Divide the year into ten parts of 37 and 36 days in alternation. Start from March 1 to keep things simple in leap years. For the first 33 1/3 days of each of those parts, sweep increments of 100 milliseconds "under the rug" by adding one millisecond to the last second of each eight-hour period. This would allow a time scale to be kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time, and it would also mean that, most of the time, a time signal would consist of a steady stream of SI seconds; the long seconds would come at predictable intervals. John Savard     Date: 03 Jun 2007 04:19:44 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:51:18 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: >Divide the year into ten parts of 37 and 36 days in alternation. Start >from March 1 to keep things simple in leap years. > >For the first 33 1/3 days of each of those parts, sweep increments of >100 milliseconds "under the rug" by adding one millisecond to the last >second of each eight-hour period. This would allow a time scale to be >kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time, and it would also mean >that, most of the time, a time signal would consist of a steady stream >of SI seconds; the long seconds would come at predictable intervals. I think it's easier just to divide the year up into an even number of uniform length seconds for civil time. The thing is, I can't think of any reason that civil time needs to be particularly accurate. We can just agree that "accurate" civil time is within 1/10 second or so of the correct time (as derived from the atomic standard), and set our clocks now and then to keep it that way. No leap seconds necessary. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 19 Jun 2007 00:48:25 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Greg Crinklaw wrote: > If there is a bot that is sophisticated enough that it is capable of > following the links to my website and finding relevant passages to use > against me in it's argument, as oriel has, you'd think it would also be > able to make more sense in what it posts in general. No, it's not a > bot. Gerald is just a poor person with a mental illness. Why is that > so difficult to believe? Do you guys think mental illness is something > that only exists in the movies or something? You all should be ashamed > of yourselves for not just ignoring him. Who know what baiting him here > might lead to in the real world? Believe it or not there sometime *are* > consequences on usenet. . I doubt that the posts asking him to calculate two plus two are going to lead to a suicide. But I'm doubtful that he is what most people think of as mentally ill either; we're not dealing with, say, bipolar disorder (in which case he would appear perfectly normal but he would only post at intervals) or paranoid schizophrenia. A mental disability, such as what used to be called senile dementia, and is now recognized as Alzheimer's disease, however, regrettably, is perfectly consistent with his posts. I had hoped he were rational enough that I could explain to him why he was mistaken, so as to have the consequence that he would no longer advance his unusual notions in real life, leading to the people there thinking of him as less strange. But if he has a disability obvious in real life, the people there will make allowances. John Savard       Date: 18 Jun 2007 15:23:31 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc wrote: > >invalid@example.com wrote: > >> Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? > >Human beings have something called emotions. Therefore, although his >responses do have something of the category of a broken record, it is >also possible that he merely regards such a question as insulting, and >beneath his dignity to respond to. Possible but unlikely. The theory that Oriel36 is a software program fits "his" observed beavior far better than your theory does.         Date: 18 Jun 2007 12:46:56 From: Greg Crinklaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second invalid@example.com wrote: > Quadibloc wrote: >> invalid@example.com wrote: >> >>> Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? >> Human beings have something called emotions. Therefore, although his >> responses do have something of the category of a broken record, it is >> also possible that he merely regards such a question as insulting, and >> beneath his dignity to respond to. > > Possible but unlikely. The theory that Oriel36 is a software program > fits "his" observed beavior far better than your theory does. If there is a bot that is sophisticated enough that it is capable of following the links to my website and finding relevant passages to use against me in it's argument, as oriel has, you'd think it would also be able to make more sense in what it posts in general. No, it's not a bot. Gerald is just a poor person with a mental illness. Why is that so difficult to believe? Do you guys think mental illness is something that only exists in the movies or something? You all should be ashamed of yourselves for not just ignoring him. Who know what baiting him here might lead to in the real world? Believe it or not there sometime *are* consequences on usenet. Greg -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye       Date: 17 Jun 2007 12:07:24 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second inva...@example.com wrote: > Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? . Human beings have something called emotions. Therefore, although his responses do have something of the category of a broken record, it is also possible that he merely regards such a question as insulting, and beneath his dignity to respond to. John Savard         Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:24:51 From: Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Oriel36 is quite amusing! "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message news:1182107244.309381.202170@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > inva...@example.com wrote: >> Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? > . > Human beings have something called emotions. Therefore, although his > responses do have something of the category of a broken record, it is > also possible that he merely regards such a question as insulting, and > beneath his dignity to respond to. > > John Savard >       Date: 16 Jun 2007 04:31:31 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 16, 11:04 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 quoted: > > > " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from > > one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two > > "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels > > nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." > > Other than the fact that the Equation of Time has changed by a few > seconds in one day, which is a reasonable simplification to aid > understanding one step at a time, what is wrong with that? > > John Savard Stand up like a man and stop grovelling before astronomy ,the natural noon cycles are unequal hence the brilliant human creation which equalises it ,not just to a 24 hour cycle but keeps each of these cycles elapsing seamlessly into the next.A person who cannot appreciate how the 86 400 seconds of Monday elapse into the 86 400 seconds of Tuesday must have a diseased outlook for what is more basic to human understanding than the daily cycle. This has gone on for far too long,the treatise by Huygens is an astronomical jewel and the first real treatise where the correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is explained in such a wonderful and exciting fashion,the fact that people choose to drag it through the mud just to support an alternative and ridiculous 'sidereal time' value imposed on the axial and orbital motion of the Earth makes this a nightmare far worse than creationism. This is just slightly bordering on a disgrace for this generation and even if the indoctrination for many runs deep and you will defend the 'sidereal time' justification tooth and nail,there has to be intelligent and confident individuals who are well aware that a cult which believes that all noon cycles are equal can only be harmful to astronomy and civilisation and you do believe the noon cycles are equal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Whatever mentality it takes to swallow that 'sidereal time' junk I do not know but it is as far removed from astronomy as one can get.       Date: 16 Jun 2007 04:12:15 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 16, 11:11 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > I would have felt that the treatise by Huygens would have been good > > enough to surmount the cult indoctrination of 'sidereal time/ > > astrological geometry' for many people and get them on board promoting > > the shared astronomical heritage in some aspect or other,if not the > > evolution of Copernican reasoning for axial orbital motion,the > > adaption of the Equation of Time principles to the axial cycle or > > future productive avenues in climatology,geology or anywhere the > > motions of the Earth have consequences. > > . > Conventional astronomers are well aware that, because the Earth's > orbit around the Sun is an ellipse, with an unequal speed of motion > provided by Kepler's laws, the Equation of Time applies. > The Equation of Time is a human creation meaning that a brilliant man once worked out how to equalise the variations in the natural daily cycle to a 24 hour cycle and subsequently equable hours, minutes and seconds..No doubt it is the effort of many men to bring that human creation to fruition and these people I treat as my astronomical ancestors.There are no astronomers around today to handle matters in a dignified manner,not a single one who has a basic grasp of the natural daily cycle,I can determine this by what you openly propose in direct conflict with what has been known since antiquity - " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html > Since the Equation of Time derives fully from those causes, this also > means that it begins from a sidereal rotation of the Earth which is > isochronous. The quote from Huyghens which you point out has not the > slightest contradiction with the conventional ideas of astronomy, > except perhaps by referring to the sundial as "right", and to > mechanical watches as what need to be corrected - which is the reverse > of the present practice, so that our watches can uniformly time > mechanical and chemical processes. When we agree with Flamsteed that > the Earth's sidereal motion is isochronous, we mean it is isochronous > in terms of mechanical watch time, not sundial time. > > John Savard Flamsteed used the return of the star Sirius to his meriidian to justify the Earth's motions using a clock,that catastrophic error which introduced astrological geometry into heliocentric reasoning - "Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:- ... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical..." http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html You may try and drag Copernicus and Huygens down to your level but their works are so stable that all you can ever do is mock yourselves.The fact is that no two noon cycles are the same and your justification of the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value for axial rotation requires that a location rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Again,I commend you for trying every avenue to wiggle your way out but because the astronomical principles which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees are so simple,so enjoyable and so stable that all you are ever going to do is highlight the nightmare of the dominance of the creationistlike condition of those who use 'sidereal time' to explain the axial and orbital cycle.       Date: 16 Jun 2007 03:11:06 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > I would have felt that the treatise by Huygens would have been good > enough to surmount the cult indoctrination of 'sidereal time/ > astrological geometry' for many people and get them on board promoting > the shared astronomical heritage in some aspect or other,if not the > evolution of Copernican reasoning for axial orbital motion,the > adaption of the Equation of Time principles to the axial cycle or > future productive avenues in climatology,geology or anywhere the > motions of the Earth have consequences. . Conventional astronomers are well aware that, because the Earth's orbit around the Sun is an ellipse, with an unequal speed of motion provided by Kepler's laws, the Equation of Time applies. Since the Equation of Time derives fully from those causes, this also means that it begins from a sidereal rotation of the Earth which is isochronous. The quote from Huyghens which you point out has not the slightest contradiction with the conventional ideas of astronomy, except perhaps by referring to the sundial as "right", and to mechanical watches as what need to be corrected - which is the reverse of the present practice, so that our watches can uniformly time mechanical and chemical processes. When we agree with Flamsteed that the Earth's sidereal motion is isochronous, we mean it is isochronous in terms of mechanical watch time, not sundial time. John Savard       Date: 16 Jun 2007 03:04:39 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 quoted: > " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from > one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two > "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels > nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." Other than the fact that the Equation of Time has changed by a few seconds in one day, which is a reasonable simplification to aid understanding one step at a time, what is wrong with that? John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 23:18:06 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 16, 4:09 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > Call me what you will, > > At least John is open about his > > technical notions, > > I *tend* to think this means that Mr. Kelleher is indeed responding to > what is being posted. Of course, today's sophisticated robot posters > can perhaps do a little parsing. > > I am beginning to think, though, that the only way to make progress in > this argument would be to quote Copernicus in the original Latin. > > John Savard The astrological framework to which your kind tethered the Earth's axial and orbital motions is such an obvious mistake and looks so ridiculous that I would scarcely believe that any person would bother to defend it. " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html An indulgent parent often smiles at the stories children make up to excuse their behavior yet here we have people from Nasa,as representative of many,doing the exact same thing - making up whatever story is neccessary to justify the Earth's motions using the return of a star to a location when it was never needed and is inapproriate. The nightmare of a creationistlike mindset becoming dominant would probably horrify some people here yet I have been dealing with this matter for many years now and have yet to find a single individual with the courage and intelligence to see their way to supporting the only correct way to treat clocks,the axial cycle and longitude correlation using the only acceptable value of 24 hours/360 degrees.       Date: 15 Jun 2007 22:59:59 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 16, 4:05 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > Could you please contact your peers in Nasa and tell them just how > > stupid they are or do you wish me to continue to highlight their > > idiocy publically. > > . > I can't help you, because I have no way to convince them that they are > making a mistake. This is because I have yet to be convinced by your > claims, and I do not even understand them to outline them to anyone > else. > The correct principles (Equation of Time) which acknowledge the inequality in the length of the natural noon cycle is absent in your 'sidereal time' justification.This makes it fairly easy to outline the correct principles and show where your beliefs,as representative of organisations like Nasa,are utterly counter-productive and destructive..The comparison can easily be seen through the treatise of Huygens and the silly ideas of the Nasa website - 'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.' " Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html > But I can reassure you that no one imagines that the Earth, the way > they once thought Mercury did, always faces one side to the Sun. > > John Savard I would have felt that the treatise by Huygens would have been good enough to surmount the cult indoctrination of 'sidereal time/ astrological geometry' for many people and get them on board promoting the shared astronomical heritage in some aspect or other,if not the evolution of Copernican reasoning for axial orbital motion,the adaption of the Equation of Time principles to the axial cycle or future productive avenues in climatology,geology or anywhere the motions of the Earth have consequences. To your credit,it took you a lot longer to descend into the usual mindnumbing mode of telling me what I am and what I am not but as far as I am concerned it is of no account,the only insult I know of is the absence of any courage and intelligence on this important matter,specifically how astronomy and climatology mesh via the motions of the Earth.       Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:09:26 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Call me what you will, > At least John is open about his > technical notions, I *tend* to think this means that Mr. Kelleher is indeed responding to what is being posted. Of course, today's sophisticated robot posters can perhaps do a little parsing. I am beginning to think, though, that the only way to make progress in this argument would be to quote Copernicus in the original Latin. John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:05:35 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Could you please contact your peers in Nasa and tell them just how > stupid they are or do you wish me to continue to highlight their > idiocy publically. . I can't help you, because I have no way to convince them that they are making a mistake. This is because I have yet to be convinced by your claims, and I do not even understand them to outline them to anyone else. But I can reassure you that no one imagines that the Earth, the way they once thought Mercury did, always faces one side to the Sun. John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 10:25:59 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 15, 2:40 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > The orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary pivots at the Equator > > rather than having the entire planet pivot at the Equator in and out > > of the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary as the above > > explanation tries to do. > > . > Yes, you are correct here: the boundary between day and night, the > terminator, is a great circle on the Earth (approximating by > neglecting atmospheric bending of light). > > And it is not connected with the Equation of Time, which operates > equally well on the Equator. > The Equation of Time is a human construct based on equalising the determination of natural noon cycle to an average 24 hour cycle therefore it is a clear indicator of the longitudinal change in the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary.That change is indeed connected to the Equation of Time for the neccessity of the Equation represents the variations in the length of time it takes the axial cycle to return to noon for any given location on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Because your kind believes that a location rotates to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly in order to justify axial rotation to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds as per the 'sidereal time' hoax you keep the Earth keeping its same face to the Sun throughout an annual orbital cycle in direct conflict with what occurs with observations on other planets.The extreme rotational orientation of Uranus provides the neccessary information to apply to the fact that the Earth's orbital orientation does not keep the same face towards the Sun - http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/etp/uranus/uranimg/URAN_diagram1.jpg So,the price of your astrological geometry ,and let me remind you it is promoted by Nasa,is very expensive considering that for all the polished reputations now commenting on the complex topic of climatology,not one can correctly identify the correct way to approach global climate and hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) via the axial and orbital motions of the Earth. Let me know when responsible people have grasped how the latitudinal and longitudinal change in the solar radaition/orbital shadow boundary,due to the orbital motion of the Earth in the reason for the Equation of Time correction and for the change in seasons and daylight/ darkness asymmetry above above and below the Equator. Of course,I have to remind you that you have still to acknowledge that the cretinous view which does not recognise the variations in the natural noon cycle still prevails - " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html Could you please contact your peers in Nasa and tell them just how stupid they are or do you wish me to continue to highlight their idiocy publically. > And you are even correct that it would be ridiculous to have the Earth > tilt backwards and forwards once a year. But that latter is *not* what > conventional astronomers say happens. Rather, they say that the Earth > is always tilted the same way - compared to the Ecliptic, the plane of > its orbit around the Sun - and in the summer, its tilt points the > North Pole towards the Sun, and in the winter, a tilt in the same > direction - pointing the North Pole unchangingly towards the star > Polaris - now points the North Pole away from the Sun, because the > Earth, that revolves around the Sun once a year, is now on the > opposite side of the Sun. > > If I am driving a car in a traffic circle, as my car goes around the > circle, it always faces forwards, so it faces in different directions > depending on the part of the circle I am in. But while I steered the > car to make it revolve in the circle, I did not in addition do > something separate to make it turn which way it is facing. In that > sense, one can say that the Earth's rotation is once every 24 hours, > since that is the rotation in excess of the change in direction the > Earth would face that is implied by its revolution. Thus, when it was > believed that Mercury always had one side facing the Sun, which was > very hot, and another side in perpetual darkness, that could be viewed > as Mercury *not* rotating, instead of, as astronomy tables showed it, > rotating once every 88 days, its year. > > But if this is your objection to the 23 hour and 56 minute and 4 > second sidereal period, it is just a semantic quibble about the > meaning of the term "rotation". If your objection is more substantive, > you are advocating the theory of Tycho Brahe. > > John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 05:40:15 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > The orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary pivots at the Equator > rather than having the entire planet pivot at the Equator in and out > of the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary as the above > explanation tries to do. . Yes, you are correct here: the boundary between day and night, the terminator, is a great circle on the Earth (approximating by neglecting atmospheric bending of light). And it is not connected with the Equation of Time, which operates equally well on the Equator. And you are even correct that it would be ridiculous to have the Earth tilt backwards and forwards once a year. But that latter is *not* what conventional astronomers say happens. Rather, they say that the Earth is always tilted the same way - compared to the Ecliptic, the plane of its orbit around the Sun - and in the summer, its tilt points the North Pole towards the Sun, and in the winter, a tilt in the same direction - pointing the North Pole unchangingly towards the star Polaris - now points the North Pole away from the Sun, because the Earth, that revolves around the Sun once a year, is now on the opposite side of the Sun. If I am driving a car in a traffic circle, as my car goes around the circle, it always faces forwards, so it faces in different directions depending on the part of the circle I am in. But while I steered the car to make it revolve in the circle, I did not in addition do something separate to make it turn which way it is facing. In that sense, one can say that the Earth's rotation is once every 24 hours, since that is the rotation in excess of the change in direction the Earth would face that is implied by its revolution. Thus, when it was believed that Mercury always had one side facing the Sun, which was very hot, and another side in perpetual darkness, that could be viewed as Mercury *not* rotating, instead of, as astronomy tables showed it, rotating once every 88 days, its year. But if this is your objection to the 23 hour and 56 minute and 4 second sidereal period, it is just a semantic quibble about the meaning of the term "rotation". If your objection is more substantive, you are advocating the theory of Tycho Brahe. John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 05:29:46 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > For some reason the lengthty post I sent last night did not make it > through to the Google newsreader . I've encountered that problem frequently, and when I go back to the page, unlike normal forms, my text is not in the box to re-send. So I've been copying each of my E-mails (using ^C) before sending, no longer trusting Google Groups. John Savard       Date: 15 Jun 2007 05:02:58 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 14, 6:33 pm, inva...@example.org wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > >M...@PRIVACY.NET wrote: > > >> oriel36 wrote: > > >> >The same stupid people who believe > >> >For all the outwardly polished reputations out there > >> >trying to grab attention > >> >not a single one of them can explain > >> >Your cult adopts false precepts by > >> >and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive > >> >standard to sub-geocentric levels. > >> >false astrological framework on which you base you ideas > >> >Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers' > >> >not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm > > >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL > >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE > >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL > >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! > > >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated > >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a > >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. > > >> ***Plonk*** > > >It is not a question of whether I am smart or not,it is a matter of > >whether I am technically correct > > Nope. "ME" got it right. You don't just present the technical merits > of your theories. You do so by putting people down, claiming that > everybody but you is an idiot. Look at the list of put-downs he > gleans from just ONE of your posts: > People who choose to stick with a view that a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to justify the astrological value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds deserve all the scorn heaped on top of them,their notions amount to vandalism of the careful work of many men and their achievements moist notably the Copernican insight on orbital and axial motions and the great Western adaption of the Equation of Time principles where clocks keep in sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees. > "The same stupid people who believe, For all the outwardly polished > reputations out there, trying to grab attention, not a single one > of them can explain, Your cult adopts false precepts by, and in the > process weakening the intellectual and intutive standard to sub- > geocentric levels, false astrological framework on which you base > you ideas, Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers', not > a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm..." > > I am going with the "oriel36 is full of himself and gets a sick > egotistical sexual thrill by insulting everyone else in the world" > theory. It fits the reality of you insulting everyone here. > > Loser.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Call me what you will,as far as I am concerned you have no self respect and insult yourselves without any assistance from me.I would be just as quick to praise people who have a genuine feel for the principles which go into heliocentric reasoning,climatology,clocks/ axial cycle and a myriad of other things to pursue but as yet not a single individual has budged.At least John is open about his technical notions,convoluted as they may be,but it is the useless cowards who think they are doing themselves a favor by being silent that makes it so easy for me to promote the original ideas of my astronomical heritage rather than the late 17th century astrological ones that your kind promote. In trying to promote a shared astronomical heritage I end up in the worst possible position of being dominant,I'm sure that sense of superiority would be something your kind aspire to but the loss of the ability to discuss astronomical matters in casual way and without pretension is the worst part of all this.         Date: 15 Jun 2007 08:49:11 From: Mij Adyaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second >> >M...@PRIVACY.NET wrote: >> >> >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL >> >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE >> >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL >> >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! >> >> >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated >> >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a >> >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. >> Oriel36 is a Bot and therefore it will not understand what you are telling it. It's just a software program. Actually, it is an experiment in artificial intelligence that has gone bad and is out-of-control. At least it's spelling and grammar is far superior to Starlord and therefore the Bot is smarter than a fifth-grader!           Date: 15 Jun 2007 23:55:35 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Mij Adyaw wrote: > >>> >ME@PRIVACY.NET wrote: >>> >>> >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL >>> >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE >>> >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL >>> >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! >>> >>> >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated >>> >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a >>> >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. > >Oriel36 is a Bot and therefore it will not understand what you are telling >it. It's just a software program. Actually, it is an experiment in >artificial intelligence that has gone bad and is out-of-control. At least >it's spelling and grammar is far superior to Starlord and therefore the Bot >is smarter than a fifth-grader! Let's do a test, shall we? Oriel36, would you please post the answer to the following question? What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two and tell us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is on larger than three, one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and "Fore." Another hint: 123_56789. 2-_-6-8-10--12-14... A human can do this. A 'bot often has trouble parsing the above question, and replies with some other answer than the desired integer, or doesn't reply at all. Let's see how Oriel36 does.             Date: 15 Jun 2007 22:32:44 From: Moohammad Habbib Moustamegwomfa Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Very good! I can't wait to see how the Oriel Bot responds to this question. "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:INCdnVfXdMZlu-7b4p2dnA@giganews.com... > > > Mij Adyaw wrote: >> >>>> >ME@PRIVACY.NET wrote: >>>> >>>> >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL >>>> >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE >>>> >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL >>>> >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! >>>> >>>> >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated >>>> >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a >>>> >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. >> >>Oriel36 is a Bot and therefore it will not understand what you are telling >>it. It's just a software program. Actually, it is an experiment in >>artificial intelligence that has gone bad and is out-of-control. At least >>it's spelling and grammar is far superior to Starlord and therefore the >>Bot >>is smarter than a fifth-grader! > > Let's do a test, shall we? Oriel36, would you please post the > answer to the following question? > > What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two and tell > us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is on larger than three, > one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and "Fore." > Another hint: 123_56789. 2-_-6-8-10--12-14... > > A human can do this. A 'bot often has trouble parsing the above > question, and replies with some other answer than the desired > integer, or doesn't reply at all. > > Let's see how Oriel36 does. >               Date: 16 Jun 2007 07:46:43 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Moohammad Habbib Moustamegwomfa wrote: > >Very good! I can't wait to see how the Oriel Bot responds to this question. Oriel36 is not a human. It is a 'bot or robot --a software program that finds keywords in your posts and replies with pre-written phrases. To prove this, just ask Oriel36 to answer the following question: Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two and tell us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is one larger than three, one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and "Fore." Another hint: 123_56789. Another: 2-_-6-8-10--12-14... A human can do this. A 'bot often has trouble parsing the above question, and replies with some other answer than the desired integer, or doesn't reply at all. Keywords to trigger reply: Equation of Time 24 hour Sun Axis Earth motion stars moon planetary axial cycle longitude orbit astrology geometry                 Date: 17 Jun 2007 12:35:07 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second invalid@example.com wrote: >Oriel36 is not a human. It is a 'bot or robot--a software program >that finds keywords in your posts and replies with pre-written >phrases. > >To prove this, just ask Oriel36 to answer the following question: > >Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two >and tell us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is one larger >than three, one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and >"Fore." Another hint: 123_56789. Another: 2-_-6-8-10--12-14... >A human can do this. A 'bot often has trouble parsing the above >question, and replies with some other answer than the desired >integer, or doesn't reply at all. Today's robot-like responses and lack of an answer to the above question proves my theory. Feel free to cut and past the following into any post in any thread the bot hax=s joined. I have a suspicion that it can't reply to a post if the following is included: Oriel36, What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two and tell us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is one larger than three, one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and "Fore." Another hint: 123_56789. Another: 2-X-6-8-10-12-14-16... Failure to answer will be considered evidence that you are a 'bot.             Date: 15 Jun 2007 22:35:24 From: Moohammad Habbib Moustamegwomfa Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Very good! I can't wait to see how the Oriel Bot responds to this question. "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:INCdnVfXdMZlu-7b4p2dnA@giganews.com... > > > Mij Adyaw wrote: >> >>>> >ME@PRIVACY.NET wrote: >>>> >>>> >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL >>>> >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE >>>> >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL >>>> >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! >>>> >>>> >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated >>>> >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a >>>> >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. >> >>Oriel36 is a Bot and therefore it will not understand what you are telling >>it. It's just a software program. Actually, it is an experiment in >>artificial intelligence that has gone bad and is out-of-control. At least >>it's spelling and grammar is far superior to Starlord and therefore the >>Bot >>is smarter than a fifth-grader! > > Let's do a test, shall we? Oriel36, would you please post the > answer to the following question? > > What is the sum of two and two? Just add two plus two and tell > us the answer you get. Hint: The answer is on larger than three, > one smaller than five, and rhymes with "for" and "Fore." > Another hint: 123_56789. 2-_-6-8-10--12-14... > > A human can do this. A 'bot often has trouble parsing the above > question, and replies with some other answer than the desired > integer, or doesn't reply at all. > > Let's see how Oriel36 does. >       Date: 15 Jun 2007 04:51:31 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 14, 12:57 pm, jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:55:07 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> > wrote, in part: > > >The > >fact that daylight/darkness lengths remain the same at the Equator > >throughout an annual cycle and swing wildly at the poles explicitly > >prohibit using variations in tilt to the Sun to explain the seasons. > > This does not make sense. > The Equator is the best place to understand the difference between the total length of the noon cycle as it applies to the Equation of Time and to jettison the stupid notion that the Earth has a variable axial inclination towards the Sun. The total length of the axial cycle determined at noon varies at the Equator just like all latitudinal points North and South of it,in other words, the Equation of Time must be applied at noon in order to equalise the variations in the axial cycle to a clock cycle of 24 hours.As daylight/darkness remain constant at the Equator and there is no discernable variations is the inclination of the Earth to the Sun,it follows that axial tilt is Not a component in the Equation of Time. More importantly,as there is no variation in inclination of the Earth to the Sun at the Equator it follows that using axial tilt to explain the seasons amounts to a pseudodynamic .The modification to Copernican reasoning for the seasons originates from observations of the Earth from space where the orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary can be seen to alter latitudinally and longitudinally against fixed rotational orientation. Of course,I am aware that dealing with people who believe that a location on Earth rotates to noon in exactly 24 hours in order to justify 'sidereal time' is hardly an intelligent audience but at least you are trying. > If you use a globe in a relatively dark room, and shine a light at it, > if your light is on the line from the globe's center to its equator, but > a distance away, it will illuminate half of each parallel of latitude. > > If you move the light upwards, it will illuminate all of some northern > parallels of latitude, and the fraction will decrease, until you get to > the great circle at the Equator, which, being a great circle, can only > be half-illuminated by a light from any direction, and then the portion > further decreases, and as many of the parallels as were fully > illuminated in the Northern hemisphere are in darkness in the Southern. > > So axial tilt is exactly what would account for the proportion of > daylight to darkness varying more near the poles and less near the > Equator. > > John Savardhttp://www.quadibloc.com/index.html The variations in daylight/darkness as a global phenomena arises from the orbital motion of the Earth and the shifting of the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary both latitudinally and longitudinally.If those numbskulls at Nasa bothered to look at the images of the Earth from space they could easily verify this instead of indoctrinating people into false astrological conceptions - " There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html For some reason the lengthty post I sent last night did not make it through to the Google newsreader but it focuses on just how bad the intelllectual standard is when an organisation like Nasa promotes junk like that 'sidereal time' justification above. The fact that nobody bothers to ask the question why daylight/darkness remains the same at the Equator and varies above and below it excluding the possibility of using variable inclination to explain the seasons highlights just how dull and dismal people have become in astronomical affairs.Not the slightest spark of recognition of the astronomical jewels left by our ancestors let alone the vibrant avenues now availible. Go ahead and explain the seasons using axial tilt or more specifically how your kind give the Earth a 23 1/2 degree annual preccession to explain the seasons - http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm The orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary pivots at the Equator rather than having the entire planet pivot at the Equator in and out of the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary as the above explanation tries to do.If a person learned this lesson today they could consider it a good day's work insofar as using the change between the side of the Earth illuminated by solar radiation and the other side which is not illuminated by solar radiation and allow it to pivot off the Equator easily explains how daylight/darkness remains the same there while North and South variations occur depending on where the Earth is in its annual orbit.It also jettisons the need for hemispherical explanations and allows the orbital motion of the Earth to do the work that is currently assigned to variable axial tilt.       Date: 14 Jun 2007 17:33:00 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: >ME@PRIVACY.NET wrote: > >> oriel36 wrote: >> >> >The same stupid people who believe >> >For all the outwardly polished reputations out there >> >trying to grab attention >> >not a single one of them can explain >> >Your cult adopts false precepts by >> >and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive >> >standard to sub-geocentric levels. >> >false astrological framework on which you base you ideas >> >Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers' >> >not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm >> >> OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL >> SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE >> THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL >> WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! >> >> Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated >> opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a >> serious conversation when all you do is insult people. >> >> ***Plonk*** > >It is not a question of whether I am smart or not,it is a matter of >whether I am technically correct Nope. "ME" got it right. You don't just present the technical merits of your theories. You do so by putting people down, claiming that everybody but you is an idiot. Look at the list of put-downs he gleans from just ONE of your posts: "The same stupid people who believe, For all the outwardly polished reputations out there, trying to grab attention, not a single one of them can explain, Your cult adopts false precepts by, and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive standard to sub- geocentric levels, false astrological framework on which you base you ideas, Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers', not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm..." I am going with the "oriel36 is full of himself and gets a sick egotistical sexual thrill by insulting everyone else in the world" theory. It fits the reality of you insulting everyone here. Loser.       Date: 14 Jun 2007 03:55:07 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 13, 2:28 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > So, while no doubt it may be important to get people to understand the > true meaning of Copernican heliocentricity, whatever it may be, at > least any failure on your part to make your ideas in this area clear > will not be responsible for dooming the world to a global warming > catastrophe. Thus, you can take the time to explain your thoughts in > this matter in a clear and orderly fashion. > > John Savard There is a neccessary modification required to Copernican reasoning,a modification that far exceeds in importance that accomplished by Kepler in the matter of orbital geometry. Global climate arising from the Earth's distance from the Sun can be broken into a subset of hemispherical weather patterns otherwise known as the seasons.It is not possible to explain hemispherical weather patterns by using a variable inclination of the Earth to the Sun.The fact that daylight/darkness lengths remain the same at the Equator throughout an annual cycle and swing wildly at the poles explicitly prohibit using variations in tilt to the Sun to explain the seasons. Considering that I am dealing with people who cannot grasp the basic axial cycle nor how Copernicus resolved the apparent motion of the other planets by invoking an orbitally moving Earth,discussing global climate from a more complicated standpoint of using the axial and orbital motions together as compound motions is practically non- existent.If you want me to put it another way - none of you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about astronomically even though you may be drawing a correct correlation between human activity and global climate imbalances . There is no huge leap between climatological studies and the ability to appreciate the axial cycle and the 24 hour/360 degree correlation insofar as the rotation of the Earth conditions climate conditions in tandem with the length of time it spends in solar radiation or in the orbital shadow,something dictated by orbital motion and Keplerian geometries.The fact is that you people believe a rotational cycle is 24 hours exactly making your view the most inept ever to appear on the planet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time God help humanity when the same people who believe in the astrological 'sidereal time' start trying to influence politicians in matters of global warming.At least I recognise why it is important to restore correct astronomical principles for climatological purposes wheras you have no responsibility other than to defend those late 17th century numbskulls and their counter-productive agendas.         Date: 14 Jun 2007 11:57:49 From: John Savard Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:55:07 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com > wrote, in part: >The >fact that daylight/darkness lengths remain the same at the Equator >throughout an annual cycle and swing wildly at the poles explicitly >prohibit using variations in tilt to the Sun to explain the seasons. This does not make sense. If you use a globe in a relatively dark room, and shine a light at it, if your light is on the line from the globe's center to its equator, but a distance away, it will illuminate half of each parallel of latitude. If you move the light upwards, it will illuminate all of some northern parallels of latitude, and the fraction will decrease, until you get to the great circle at the Equator, which, being a great circle, can only be half-illuminated by a light from any direction, and then the portion further decreases, and as many of the parallels as were fully illuminated in the Northern hemisphere are in darkness in the Southern. So axial tilt is exactly what would account for the proportion of daylight to darkness varying more near the poles and less near the Equator. John Savard http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html       Date: 14 Jun 2007 03:26:57 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 13, 2:08 pm, M...@PRIVACY.NET wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > >The same stupid people who believe > >For all the outwardly polished reputations out there > >trying to grab attention > >not a single one of them can explain > >Your cult adopts false precepts by > >and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive > >standard to sub-geocentric levels. > >false astrological framework on which you base you ideas > >Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers' > >not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm > > OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL > SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE > THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL > WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! > > Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated > opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a > serious conversation when all you do is insult people. > > ***Plonk*** People are fine and generally give the correct answer to the question of how long it takes the Earth to rotate 360 degrees,the answer is 24 hours exactly,the problem is with the astrologers who try to impose the alterantive value of 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value for the axxial cycle. The technical details of how clocks keep in sync with the axial cycle at 1 degree for every 4 minutes making 24 hours/360 degrees and thereby provide a way to measure geographical seperation on the planet using the longitude/clock correlation is not generally known or rather is obscured by the false reasoning supported by the big institutions - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml It is not a question of whether I am smart or not,it is a matter of whether I am technically correct and my heritage,derived from people like Huygens,indicates that the present dominant view is astrological based,not just wrong but destructively wrong. http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html The greatest difficulty facing humanity,at least in this matter,is that people who call themselves 'astronomers' are simply people interested in magnification and while the exercise IS a facet of astronomy the same people use an astrological framework for their observations.Even with nothing to lose and much to gain,I still cannot account for why they do not set aside the astrological framework as just a convenience and allow the Earth's motion to dictate matters such as global climate and the hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) as a subset. Most of this astronomical territory is uncharted ,a journey into unexplored regions for those who can appreciate the Earth's motions correctly rather than putting the Earth of a celestial sphere/ constellation bubble.         Date: 14 Jun 2007 11:53:37 From: John Savard Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:26:57 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com > wrote, in part: > People are fine and generally give the correct answer to the question > of how long it takes the Earth to rotate 360 degrees,the answer is 24 > hours exactly,the problem is with the astrologers who try to impose > the alterantive value of 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value for the > axxial cycle. . Well, it is true that the Earth faces the Sun in a period of time that is approximately 24 hours - as you've pointed out, that isn't exact, because of the Equation of Time. However, over the course of a year, the difference caused by the Equation of Time *averages out*. The sundial, compared to our wristwatches, might be 15 minutes or so early or late at its farthest deviation, but then it comes back to a correspondence. So the sundial does NOT gain or lose a whole day each year. We're agreed on that, I hope, because it is an experimentally verified fact. In heliocentric astronomy, the Earth goes *around* the Sun. Are we in agreement on that, or is that "astrological geometry", since it can be referred to in relation to the Sun's apparent position among the constellations surrounding the Ecliptic? If it is agreed that the Earth goes around the Sun, making a 360 degree circle around it in the course of a year, *then* from the same viewpoint as we see the Earth going around the Sun, we will see the Earth rotating on its axis _with a period such as would, if given to a clock, cause that clock to gain one day in a year_ in order to make up for the day lost because of the changing direction to the Sun. And that is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. As was pointed out some time before, your choice is either to accept this as the period of the axial rotation of the Earth, or to follow the theory of Tycho Brahe, and assume that the whole immensity of the heavens revolves around the Sun once a year. Astronomy as it is today rests on a foundation of plain and simple fact. The motions of the heavenly bodies are understood from the viewpoint in which they are individually simple and nearly uniform. John Savard http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html       Date: 14 Jun 2007 02:59:05 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 14, 12:35 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Engineer wrote: > > Why is it that variations in sun activity are generally > > proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and > > atmospheric temperature? Which is the cause and which > > is the effect? > > Obviously, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot cause sunspots. > > Perhaps increased sunspot activity does have some effect on the carbon > cycle on Earth, but it is well known that fossil fuel burning creates > a net addition to carbon dioxide, and it is well known that it has a > greenhouse effect. As well, higher global temperatures have led to > peat bogs in Russia thawing, releasing methane, and high carbon > dioxide levels have led to the Southern Hemisphere ocean no longer > accepting more carbon dioxide. > The problem is not just global warming due to human activity,it is the problem of people like you,and there are in the majority,who cannot handle basic principles such as how clocks keep in sync with the axial cycle or attributing a variable axial tilt to the Earth to explain the seasons.The problem of people with sub-geocentric/astrological perspectives is far worse than the dangers of human activity influencing climate insofar as at least there is now some action on the matter of reducing greenhouse gases but there is no effort to understand the basic astronomical principles to link climatology with astronomy. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html You lot want your astrological geometry and will do everything to save that 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value for justifying the Earth's axial and orbital motions even though it is incorrect.Considering that the same pseudo-authority is now commenting on climate matters and may influence the direction of policies,it is something else to see the same authority unable to grasp basic astronomical principles such as the explanation for the seasons using the motions of the Earth,even when there are images of the Earth seen from space availible. Global warming or more accurately-a climate imabalance is fine as long as people recognise it and at least try to do something about it ,unfortunately they are doing this blind insofar as a proper appreciation of the motions of the Earth is impossible using the Flamsteed/Newton astrological scheme,the one that is promoted by that Nasa website above. I can see from your reply that you lot will do to climatology what you did to astronomy from drawing false correlations at local level and try to impose things globally instead of understanding things globally first and adding details in as you go along.Copernicus knew your kind quite well but the difference is that your poor intellectual and intutive standards are far more destructive in this era than they were in his - " although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543 Copernicus The inappropriate element brought in by the Flamsteed/Newton scheme was the introduction of astrological geometry into heliocentric reasoning where the numerical agreements are satisfied within the calendrical cycle,this monster truly shows its face as genuine investigators try to explain global climate using only the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.The sub-geocentric level present in this era amounts to a non-authoritive and undisciplined approach to any astronomical topic where any story can be made up to suit any desired conclusion,the Nasa website is a relevent and unfortunate example of this - http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html Why do you not stick with time travel,warped space,dark matter and other exotic nonsense where you can do no harm but unfortunately your kind,whoes only attribute appears to be spotting an opportunity,will apply the same astrological reasoning to climatology as your kind does to astronomy. > Commercial vested interests may attempt to minimize the global warming > problem, so we need to be cautious before immediately accepting any > theories that get human activity off the hook. > > But this doesn't mean we should go back to the Stone Age! We have a > simple method to solve the global warming problem that doesn't require > abandoning our cars and using only energy from wind power and > geothermal and other warm and fuzzy energy sources. > > Nuclear power. > > So don't let the eco-freaks get you down. We can still party while > taking care of tomorrow! > > John Savard       Date: 13 Jun 2007 16:35:37 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Engineer wrote: > Why is it that variations in sun activity are generally > proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and > atmospheric temperature? Which is the cause and which > is the effect? Obviously, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot cause sunspots. Perhaps increased sunspot activity does have some effect on the carbon cycle on Earth, but it is well known that fossil fuel burning creates a net addition to carbon dioxide, and it is well known that it has a greenhouse effect. As well, higher global temperatures have led to peat bogs in Russia thawing, releasing methane, and high carbon dioxide levels have led to the Southern Hemisphere ocean no longer accepting more carbon dioxide. Commercial vested interests may attempt to minimize the global warming problem, so we need to be cautious before immediately accepting any theories that get human activity off the hook. But this doesn't mean we should go back to the Stone Age! We have a simple method to solve the global warming problem that doesn't require abandoning our cars and using only energy from wind power and geothermal and other warm and fuzzy energy sources. Nuclear power. So don't let the eco-freaks get you down. We can still party while taking care of tomorrow! John Savard       Date: 13 Jun 2007 15:07:48 From: Engineer Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: >Global warming is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the air, so >that long-wave infrared radiation is prevented from escaping into >space, but instead re-heats the air. Why is it that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature? Which is the cause and which is the effect? Why is it that the timing of global temperature increases does not coincide with the timing of increases in greenhouse gases? Why does the temperature rise happen before the CO2 rise if the CO2 is the cause and the temperature is the effect? References: Solar Variability and Climate Change, by Willie Soon, Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91 Introduction to Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2007/07005gerhard/index.htm Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html Statement Concerning Global Warming by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html Testomony of Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html       Date: 13 Jun 2007 06:28:40 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > For all the outwardly polished reputations out there trying to grab > attention with climate imbalances such as global warming,not a single > one of them can explain how the motions of the Earth provide the > background for global climate and hemispherical weather patterns > otherwise known as the seasons.The actual details for both global > climate and the seasons are radically different than your variable > tilting Earth. At least I have good news for you. However the Earth moves around the Sun, it does it the same way now as it did 500 years ago, and we cannot change it. Thus, even if the seasons were caused by the Sun turning cartwheels, it would not matter to global warming. Global warming is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the air, so that long-wave infrared radiation is prevented from escaping into space, but instead re-heats the air. This is not affected by any misunderstanding of the Earth's rotation, axial geometry, or orbit with which orthodox astronomers may be afflicted. So, while no doubt it may be important to get people to understand the true meaning of Copernican heliocentricity, whatever it may be, at least any failure on your part to make your ideas in this area clear will not be responsible for dooming the world to a global warming catastrophe. Thus, you can take the time to explain your thoughts in this matter in a clear and orderly fashion. John Savard       Date: 12 Jun 2007 20:54:41 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 13, 2:30 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > Some sickening wells up when you are having so much fun at the expense > > of astronomy, > > . > I merely indicated that Paul Schluyter was not behaving in an arrogant > manner towards me or others on this group, as you seemed to think. > > > perhaps the fact that behind the worthy attempt to alter > > human influence on background global climate conditions there is no > > accurate explanation given for the seasons or rather a pseudo-dynamic > > of variable axial tilt to the Sun is used as the major cause in > > seasonal variations. > > . > With our "astrological geometry", we don't have to claim that the big, > heavy Earth changes how it is tilted. The pole just stays pointing to > Polaris. However, the Earth goes from one side of the Sun to the other > in a plane not exactly perpendicular to the line from the Sun to > Polaris; the ecliptic is not the celestial equator. Hence, seasons. > The same stupid people who believe that the noon cycle is 24 hours exactly assign the pseudo-dynamic of variable inclination to explain the seasons - http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html For all the outwardly polished reputations out there trying to grab attention with climate imbalances such as global warming,not a single one of them can explain how the motions of the Earth provide the background for global climate and hemispherical weather patterns otherwise known as the seasons.The actual details for both global climate and the seasons are radically different than your variable tilting Earth. > > Humanity > > always finds a way through the tyranny of a cult indoctrination > > insofar as despite a century of trying to dump exotic nonsense on > > humanity, people find their way through the convoluted mess and > > appreciate what comes naturally to them. > > . > If conventional astronomy *were* a cult indoctrination, *I* would have > found my way through it to the truth. It isn't convoluted, messy, or > nonsense. Somehow, though, it still managed to trip you up somewhere. > I have shown how the average 24 hour day was transfered to the axial cycle via the Equation of Time correction and more importantly as a correlation that is an affirmation of Copernican heliocentricity.Your cult adopts false precepts by tying axial rotation directly to astrological geometry and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive standard to sub-geocentric levels. > > The intricate principle > > which keeps clock in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial > > geometry is a wonderful way to affirm Copernican heliocentric > > reasoning while the false astrological framework on which you base you > > ideas move in the direction of sub-geocentricty. > > . > I'm not even sure what sub-geocentricity means; but it is true that > referencing things to a stationary framework, approximated by the > fixed stars, makes things very simple; simpler even than the > geocentric system, since all the epicycles go away. But that's the way > it should be. > > John Savard Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers' suffer you as they do not count me as among them even though I have been the greatest supporter of imaging. A person who cannot even affirm a simple thing like the 24 hour day and how it relates to terrestrial longitudes and the axial cycle via the Equation of Time does not belong in an astronomy forum,considering that not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm the 24 hour /360 degree correlation makes this era a particularly dark one,not just in astronomical affairs but in many areas related to human achievement.         Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:08:31 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: >The same stupid people who believe >For all the outwardly polished reputations out there >trying to grab attention >not a single one of them can explain >Your cult adopts false precepts by >and in the process weakening the intellectual and intutive >standard to sub-geocentric levels. >false astrological framework on which you base you ideas >Let these people who call themselves 'astronomers' >not a single person has the guts or the capability to affirm OK! WE GET IT! YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF AND GET A SICK EGOTISICAL SEXUAL THRILL BY INSULTING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU ARE THE ONLY SMART ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS AN IDIOT. ALL HAIL THE ALL WISE AND ALL KNOWING ORIEL36!! MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!!! Now shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody cares about your inflated opinion of yourself, and nobody is going to engage you in a serious conversation when all you do is insult people. ***Plonk***       Date: 12 Jun 2007 17:30:23 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Some sickening wells up when you are having so much fun at the expense > of astronomy, . I merely indicated that Paul Schluyter was not behaving in an arrogant manner towards me or others on this group, as you seemed to think. > perhaps the fact that behind the worthy attempt to alter > human influence on background global climate conditions there is no > accurate explanation given for the seasons or rather a pseudo-dynamic > of variable axial tilt to the Sun is used as the major cause in > seasonal variations. . With our "astrological geometry", we don't have to claim that the big, heavy Earth changes how it is tilted. The pole just stays pointing to Polaris. However, the Earth goes from one side of the Sun to the other in a plane not exactly perpendicular to the line from the Sun to Polaris; the ecliptic is not the celestial equator. Hence, seasons. > Humanity > always finds a way through the tyranny of a cult indoctrination > insofar as despite a century of trying to dump exotic nonsense on > humanity, people find their way through the convoluted mess and > appreciate what comes naturally to them. . If conventional astronomy *were* a cult indoctrination, *I* would have found my way through it to the truth. It isn't convoluted, messy, or nonsense. Somehow, though, it still managed to trip you up somewhere. > The intricate principle > which keeps clock in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial > geometry is a wonderful way to affirm Copernican heliocentric > reasoning while the false astrological framework on which you base you > ideas move in the direction of sub-geocentricty. . I'm not even sure what sub-geocentricity means; but it is true that referencing things to a stationary framework, approximated by the fixed stars, makes things very simple; simpler even than the geocentric system, since all the epicycles go away. But that's the way it should be. John Savard       Date: 12 Jun 2007 15:21:41 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 12, 1:38 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: > > In article <1181409559.720557.284...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > > > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > > > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > > > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > > > an even number of days. > > > Mostly true - a normal year is not an even but an odd number of days > > (365). But leap years are an even number of days (366) ..... > > > ;-) > > Of course, the smiley shows you knew perfectly well that what I meant > was that a normal year was not even an integer number of days, let > alone an integer number of pairs of days, and so this is all in good > fun! > > John Savard Some sickening wells up when you are having so much fun at the expense of astronomy,perhaps the fact that behind the worthy attempt to alter human influence on background global climate conditions there is no accurate explanation given for the seasons or rather a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt to the Sun is used as the major cause in seasonal variations. With images of the Earth from space it should be easy to grasp not just the way the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary alters but how the rate of change longitudinally is the main indication of Keplerian orbital geometries and subsequently the neccessity of the Equation of Time correction. There are no astronomers or any astronomical authority at present to stop you having your 'fun' but that will certainly change.Humanity always finds a way through the tyranny of a cult indoctrination insofar as despite a century of trying to dump exotic nonsense on humanity,people find their way through the convoluted mess and appreciate what comes naturally to them.Stories such as how clocks resolved Longitude is probably the most read book of the last decade and of course it all goes back to the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency just as Huygens instructs you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html It is not a matter that you will fail but rather that people will discover their astronomical heritage from behind astrological geometry which has infected astronomy for 3 centuries .The intricate principle which keeps clock in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial geometry is a wonderful way to affirm Copernican heliocentric reasoning while the false astrological framework on which you base you ideas move in the direction of sub-geocentricty.Again,an accurate approach to the relationship between axial and orbital motions is required for the sprawling topic of global climate and while you and the other guys are having childish 'fun',much productive work goes on unattended.       Date: 12 Jun 2007 03:50:22 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 12, 1:38 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: > > In article <1181409559.720557.284...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > > > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > > > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > > > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > > > an even number of days. > > > Mostly true - a normal year is not an even but an odd number of days > > (365). But leap years are an even number of days (366) ..... > > > ;-) > > Of course, the smiley shows you knew perfectly well that what I meant > was that a normal year was not even an integer number of days, let > alone an integer number of pairs of days, and so this is all in good > fun! > > John Savard The 24 hour/360 degree equivalency which keeps clocks in sync with the axial cycle via the Equation of Time correction is ultimately an affirmation of Copernican heliocentricity.There is no doubt that your kind get a perverse satisfaction from creating whatever story you need to reach whatever undisciplined conclusion you want in contrast to the rich,dignified and enjoyable principles my astronomical ancestors left for us to appreciate and therein exists something which I cannot account for. The correct way to approach the Earth's motions from the standpoint of how Copernicus isolated the orbital motion of the Earth is enjoyable and fresh today as it was 500 years ago with the complimentary addition of the application of the 24 hour day to terrestrial longitudes following close behind. Your kind has no soul or that developed intutive intelligence which comes with the experience of life and insofar as everyone is an astronomer by virtue that there bodies are built for the cycles of the Earth and its motions,this fundamental appreciation is absent in all that you do and say.I regret the absence of an astronomer to deal with matters but they will certainly return some day to make astronomy the vibrant and noble discipline it once was.       Date: 11 Jun 2007 16:38:51 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > In article <1181409559.720557.284330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > > an even number of days. > > Mostly true - a normal year is not an even but an odd number of days > (365). But leap years are an even number of days (366) ..... > > ;-) Of course, the smiley shows you knew perfectly well that what I meant was that a normal year was not even an integer number of days, let alone an integer number of pairs of days, and so this is all in good fun! John Savard       Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:54:37 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 10, 10:42 pm, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote: > In article <1181409559.720557.284...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > > an even number of days. > > Mostly true - a normal year is not an even but an odd number of days > (365). But leap years are an even number of days (366) ..... > > ;-) > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN > e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se > WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/ It must be something else to see you taunt the magnification guys just to show how dominant you are but you would not dare bring something before me you corward. Perhaps they will get sick enough of your kind to actually help promote the astronomy of Copernicus and the great astronomical timekeepers and show humanity what astronomy actually is.       Date: 10 Jun 2007 04:07:12 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 9, 7:19 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > Justifying 4 orbital cycles using a calendar framework of 3 years of > > 365 days and 1 year of 366 days is creationistlike in content and > > character. > > . > As you've pointed out, no two natural cycles are the same. > As Huygens points out as representative of any real astronomer - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy" Huygens > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > an even number of days. > > The tropical year is about 365.2422 days. A close approximation to > that, which is easy to remember, is 365 1/4 days. But we know that > this approximation is not perfect. 365.2425 is closer - so we leave > out the leap year every century, except in years like the year 2000 > which are divisible by 400. This is the Gregorian calendar. > > What is "Creationist" about that? We want to begin our year on a > particular day, not at 8 AM one year and 11:49 AM the next year. So we > approximate as best we can in a reasonable way. > > John Savard You do not,as representative of the entire group here, acknowledge that the correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is 24 hours/360 degrees and adopt an alternative value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds to justify the Earth's axial and orbital motions.There is nothing reasonable in what you do or say and it is so counter-productive that it is rotting Western civilisation by exploiting the intricate,delicate and stable timekeeping and structural astronomy and turning it into a convoluted mess .You choose any story you like to reach whatever conclusion you choose but that is and never was astronomy. You are creationists because it is a clear choice between what it correct via the principles demonstarted by Huygens and the warped principles proposed by Flamsteed.Take it or leave it - http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Choose one or the other but you cannot have both .       Date: 09 Jun 2007 10:19:19 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Justifying 4 orbital cycles using a calendar framework of 3 years of > 365 days and 1 year of 366 days is creationistlike in content and > character. . As you've pointed out, no two natural cycles are the same. So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be an even number of days. The tropical year is about 365.2422 days. A close approximation to that, which is easy to remember, is 365 1/4 days. But we know that this approximation is not perfect. 365.2425 is closer - so we leave out the leap year every century, except in years like the year 2000 which are divisible by 400. This is the Gregorian calendar. What is "Creationist" about that? We want to begin our year on a particular day, not at 8 AM one year and 11:49 AM the next year. So we approximate as best we can in a reasonable way. John Savard         Date: 16 Jun 2007 08:31:01 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Flamsteed used the return of the star Sirius to his meriidian to > justify the Earth's motions using a clock,that catastrophic error > which introduced astrological geometry into heliocentric reasoning - > > "Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the > sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar > time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth > round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:- > > ... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I > doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be > isochronical..." > > http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html The star Sirius is a natural object, and if the transits of Sirius come in a regular 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second cycle by a mechanical clock, while noon each day by the Sun comes in a cycle that averages to 24 hours, then these are both legitimate facts of nature. Neither fact is more important or more dignified or more legitimate than the other. These two facts do not contradict each other, or require the stars to move. Rather, they let us see the causes behind the Equation of Time: the cause is the Earth orbiting the Sun in an elliptical orbit, which, by Kepler's laws, includes faster motion when the Earth is nearer the Sun. > You may try and drag Copernicus and Huygens down to your level but > their works are so stable that all you can ever do is mock > yourselves.The fact is that no two noon cycles are the same and your > justification of the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value for axial > rotation requires that a location rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly - > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time No, the justification of that value for axial rotation requires *no such thing*. It may be explained more simply by assuming an orbit for the Earth that is a perfect circle, so that for simplicity the Equation of Time is put aside to be explained later. That is all that was happening there. > Again,I commend you for trying every avenue to wiggle your way out but > because the astronomical principles which keep clocks in sync with the > axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees are so simple,so enjoyable and so > stable that all you are ever going to do is highlight the nightmare of > the dominance of the creationistlike condition of those who use > 'sidereal time' to explain the axial and orbital cycle. If that were true, more people would understand what you have to say, and they would agree with you. Brainwashing into complicated nonsense *cannot* be carried out so successfully and so universally as you seem to imagine has happened. John Savard         Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:42:28 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1181409559.720557.284330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > So, if you take the day, which averages to 24 hours, it will happen > that the year of the seasons, to which we would like to tie our > calendar so it tells us when to plant and when to harvest, will not be > an even number of days. Mostly true - a normal year is not an even but an odd number of days (365). But leap years are an even number of days (366) ..... ;-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 02 Jun 2007 22:04:12 From: Dr J R Stockton Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In sci.astro.amateur message <slrnf6346f.dq.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org >, Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:46:37, Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > posted: > Current may be described >as a rate of flow of charge, potential as energy per unit of charge >transferred, but what is charge? You can't break charge down any >further - it's simply a property of certain types of matter and >that's as far as you can go - even the physicists can't define >exactly what charge is, which is why I believe it should be considered >fundamental. > >So you end up with our Coulomb being defined as a certain multiple >of the electron charge, the volt defined as Joules per Coulomb (the >Joule being defined mechanically so we don't need to consider it >here), and the amp defined as charge transferred per unit time. For theoreticians, the charge on the electron is (apparently) fundamental, for that sort of reason. But, AFAIK, one cannot yet count an electron flow well enough to use as a standard. If and when it becomes possible to realise a distributable standard for current determined by electron counting, and to do so better than one based on the force definition, and that state is thoroughly established and considered unlikely to change, then the metrological and scientific communities can consider making such a change to the ultimate definition (as it did for the metre). Somewhat more readily, the metrologists could change to use electron- counting as the practical means of maintaining a consistent working near-primary standard. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stockton@physics.org Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with " >" or "> " (SoRFC1036)   Date: 02 Jun 2007 13:30:48 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second oriel36 wrote: > Thanks again for the creationist viewpoint of astronomy and > timekeeping,should anybody take the time to comprehend how the 24 hour > day emeged from the natural noon cycle and from there to the > heliocentric adaption to the axial cycle and promote the gorgeous > system to the best of their abilities,they can genuinely call > themselves astronomers. . Well, of course I was just making a rhetorical flourish - Ephemeris Time was simply at the beginning of a particular phase of timekeeping, where it was necessary to rely on other phenomena, such as the orbital motions of the Earth, the Moon, and other planets, to provide an accurate uniform scale of time, rather than the Earth's axial rotation. Of course people told time by the Sun originally. First in a general way, with distinctions between morning, noon, afternoon, and night by observation, and then more precisely, with instruments from Stonehenge to sundials. While I don't subscribe to your position on the matters on which you have expressed concern (and, in fact, still have some difficulty in nailing down your precise objection to the _status quo_), as someone concerned with the importance of the natural 24 hour day, you are in a position to appreciate the fact that I am proposing a way to keep our clocks synchronized to the natural 24 hour day. Because the length of the atomic second is too short for 86,400 of them to make a 24 hour day, we have had to insert "leap seconds" into the time we use. Some people have said that we should just dump the leap second, and let our clocks drift, very slowly, away from their relationship to the apparent Sun. It would, after all, take perhaps about 40,000 years before our clocks said 12 noon when it was really 11:30 by a sundial, so who cares, they apparently argue. Instead, I am proposing a scheme whereby the people with rubidium- driven or cesium driven clocks will still have to remember to tell them "this year has a leap second", but the people who only have quartz clocks - even the oven controlled crystal clocks are only accurate to 2/3 of a second per year - will have the leap second taken care of as they periodically reset them to the correct time from standards giving the civil time by my proposed scheme. So we avoid doom and gloom from people forgetting to keep the clocks of the Internet in order, *and* we keep the time scale in line with the real 24 hour day. John Savard   Date: 02 Jun 2007 13:19:29 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second sla29...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 31, 5:51 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: . > > GPS time is keyed > > to plain atomic time - noleap seconds, and nothing in the GPS signal > > tells you aboutleap seconds. You have to key that in by hand, I > > suppose. . > No. I'll play the role of the GPS newsgroup members. > > ICD-GPS-200C issued 1993 and updated through 2003, page 74 says that > Subframe 4 Page 18 Word 9 contains WN_LSF and DN. > WN_LSF is the GPS week during which the next leap second will occur, > and DN is the day number of that week at the end of which the leap > will occur. > > As seen in > http://www.ican.nf.net/R4update.htm > there were hiccoughs where some brands of navigation devices > implemented the leap second as soon as GPS announced it. There was > also indication of a network time device which started inserting leap > seconds into its NTP output stream every day starting the day that GPS > set the announcement bits. . Dang! That's what I get for believing everything I read on Wikipedia! . And, yes, you *are* playing the role of the GPS newsgroup members, because I made one post about my idea in their newsgroup too, and received no replies. However, that post may not have included any statements, including that particular erroneous statement, about GPS. John Savard   Date: 02 Jun 2007 10:43:01 From: oriel36 Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 2:51 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > In the beginning, there was Ephemeris Time. Thanks for that very creationist viewpoint shared by all the other theorists here,unfortunately it is a very lonely position that everybody here has absolutely no interest as to how the 24 hour day and subsequently equable hours,minutes,seconds were created . Common sense and a healthy appreciation of the magnificent Equation of Time system which equalises the variations in the natural noon cycle to the standard cycle of the 24 hour day and from there into the equable divisions of hours,minutes and smaller divisions should awaken that genuine love of humanity for the accomplishments of our ancestors and especially that the most accurate clock that ever could be devised will always fall short of the principles devised by brilliant men ,streching from remote antiquity to the heliocentric astronomers. Dear,oh dear,all these doctorates here and not one can match the reasoning of the pre-Copernican timekeeping astronomers who created the 24 hour day nor the heliocentric astronomers who attached the Equation of Time system to the axial cycle as a 24 hour\360 degree equivalency.To overide the easy to understand network for a mess of a system created in the late 17th century must take some doing,it must take an enormous amount of effort to ignore the intricate developments that took place in timekeeping and astronomy to arrive at the point where you state -" In the beginning was ephemeris time" or rather your astrological view of a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second\360 degree correlation between clocks and the axial cycle. Thanks again for the creationist viewpoint of astronomy and timekeeping,should anybody take the time to comprehend how the 24 hour day emeged from the natural noon cycle and from there to the heliocentric adaption to the axial cycle and promote the gorgeous system to the best of their abilities,they can genuinely call themselves astronomers. As for you and your colleagues,well ......   Date: 02 Jun 2007 08:54:44 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 5:51 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > GPS time is keyed > to plain atomic time - noleap seconds, and nothing in the GPS signal > tells you aboutleap seconds. You have to key that in by hand, I > suppose. No. I'll play the role of the GPS newsgroup members. ICD-GPS-200C issued 1993 and updated through 2003, page 74 says that Subframe 4 Page 18 Word 9 contains WN_LSF and DN. WN_LSF is the GPS week during which the next leap second will occur, and DN is the day number of that week at the end of which the leap will occur. As seen in http://www.ican.nf.net/R4update.htm there were hiccoughs where some brands of navigation devices implemented the leap second as soon as GPS announced it. There was also indication of a network time device which started inserting leap seconds into its NTP output stream every day starting the day that GPS set the announcement bits.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 18:22:25 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > The Volt would change too, if we kept the Watt unchanged as being > equal to one Newton-meter-second: a "new Volt" would become equal to > some 10 traditional micro-Volts! Yes, that would be natural, since the second and the kilogram and the meter should not be altered. > The Faraday may be interesting theoretically, but for practical uses > it's just too large. Perhaps the milli-Faraday or micro-Faraday could have > been made the fundamental unit - much like the kilo-gram rather than the > gram is the fundamental SI unit for mass: the gram is too small to be > practical. Yes, precisely. John Savard   Date: 02 Jun 2007 00:00:07 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc wrote: > In the beginning, there was Ephemeris Time. > > Then, it got replaced by TAI. > > Both were made up of seconds the length of which was based on the > length of the second in 1900. But the Earth's rotation has been > slowing down, due to tidal forces. > > Because TAI started off from civil time at the time of its adoption, > while Ephemeris time presumably started on noon, December 31st, 1899, > GMT, a clock showing Ephemeris Time would be 32.184 seconds ahead of > one showing TAI. > > And a clock showing TAI would be 19 seconds ahead of one showing the > time used in the GPS system. > > Civil time switched over to atomic time with inserted leap seconds > when TAI was already 10 seconds ahead of civil time. > > Anyways: a while back, there was a message in these newsgroups about > how a group, shrouding its activities in mystery, came forwards with a > proposal to just forget about leap seconds. We could always adjust our > clocks an hour at a time, if we really felt strongly about wanting > local 12 noon to happen around lunchtime. > > I don't think the mass of humanity really considers it so important to > be "modern" and "scientific" that they would willingly allow the clock > to be independent of the real time of day. > An adventure in relative time-keeping http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_3/16_1.shtml Time Too Good to Be True http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_3/10_1.shtml I enjoyed Daniel Kleppner's Reference Frame about the relativistic effects of elevation on precise clocks (PHYSICS TODAY, March 2006, page 10). He would be amused with an experiment I did with my kids last year. The year 2005 was the widely publicized 100th anniversary of Einstein's first paper on relativity and the lesser-known 50th anniversary of Louis Essen's first cesium clock. To celebrate, I created Project GREAT (General Relativity Einstein/Essen Anniversary Test), perhaps the first "kitchen science" relativity experiment. See: http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_3/16_1.shtml   Date: 01 Jun 2007 22:46:39 From: Dr J R Stockton Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In sci.astro.amateur message <f3n108$2fjq$1@merope.saaf.se >, Thu, 31 May 2007 17:42:23, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > posted: > >I think applications which really need a time accuracy better than >a few seconds over long time interval should use TT, TAI, GPS time, or >some other suitable *uniform* time scale *without* *leap* *seconds*! >All other applications, where it doesn't matter whether the time is >off by a few seconds, should adjust for leap seconds whenever they >occur, but ignore leap seconds when computing the time interval >between two instants - much like the UNIX time() family of funtions do >today. I use "broadcast" in the widest possible sense here. The time for civil chronometrical purposes should be substantially the traditional GMT, a mean solar time, with adjustments for longitude and season in the present manner. Time-and-date signals for this should be broadcast. The human race can adapt its activities to short- and long- term variations in the terrestrial motions causing corresponding variations in the length of the civil year month day hour minute and second. The unit of time for all measurement processes should be the SI second, as presently fixed and possibly in future redefined. There should be broadcast signals for these too, quite independently of civil time, and in a fully-decimal system. In some fields, it seems possible to use either system, and hence necessary to make a choice - aero-navigation might be one, using SI time in the cockpit while on the runway and in the air, and civil time in the cabin and on the ground. Astronomers should use SI time for recording observation, terrestrial time for pointing telescopes, and civil time for ordinary life - they should be smart enough to manage. Under such a scheme, NASA might have been guided into using SI time for controlling the Shuttle (retaining GMT for the crew's activity) and so would not have fallen into the rather obvious Year Rollover Difficulty. Since the Shuttle is supposed to be up for of the order of a fortnight at most, 32 bits of SI seconds should give an ample margin. To avoid confusion, the SI second should have a new name and symbol. Since ms is so widely written mS, and there's rarely any possible ambiguity between second and Siemens, and the latter is somewhat specialist, ISTM that the Siemens should revert to the Mho (thus removing the trap of writing One Siemen) and the symbol S be used for the SI Second, with a suitable new name. I think the Schlyter is available, though it might be necessary to choose something easier to spell ... -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stockton@physics.org Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with " >" or "> " (SoRFC1036)   Date: 01 Jun 2007 22:32:31 From: Dr J R Stockton Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In sci.astro.amateur message <1180647416.004945.171460@k79g2000hse.googl egroups.com >, Thu, 31 May 2007 14:36:56, Steve Willner <willner@cfa.harvard.edu > posted: >Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap >second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second >86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. >There is, of course, no redefinition of the SI second itself. That approach means that the Rate of Time, at a given instant within 24 hours or so of a Leap Second, would depend on Time Zone and Summer Time; or that the above must mean UTC days. There's no evident sense in having the adjustment period unsymmetrically placed about the Leap second. Use 12 or 24 hours on either side. Don't forget negative Leap Seconds. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ > - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:20:22 From: Steve Willner Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second > > Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap > > second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second > > 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. sla29...@gmail.com wrote: > How exactly is this scheme going to be implemented? I'll put "implementation difficulty" down as a disadvantage. :-) Of course that applies for any change to the current system. For systems that can tolerate time errors of order 1 s, implementation is the same as now: reset the clock whenever there's a leap second. If you reset at noon on leap-second day, the maximum error is 0.5 s. Systems that have more stringent requirements will need to have a clock that runs at two different rates: the normal rate on normal days and the slower rate on leap-second days. Only two rates are needed, and both rates are exactly known in SI seconds. If this scheme were adopted -- and I'm not really offering a serious proposal -- I'd expect the time services to distribute UTx. Devices that synch up automatically with the time services would still do that. Other devices would need to be "told" about the leap seconds and perform as above. In answer to Paul's comment about distributing two different times, I'd expect UTC to go out of use. Advantages seem to be: no jumps, synchronized with Earth rotation (to the accuracy of UTC), constant 86400 seconds per day (no 23:59:60), easily convertible to TAI (given table of leap seconds) or to UTC.     Date: 02 Jun 2007 09:12:21 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180732822.074130.269920@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, Steve Willner <willner@cfa.harvard.edu > wrote: >>> Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap >>> second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second >>> 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. > > sla29...@gmail.com wrote: >> How exactly is this scheme going to be implemented? > > I'll put "implementation difficulty" down as a disadvantage. :-) Of > course that applies for any change to the current system. > > For systems that can tolerate time errors of order 1 s, implementation > is the same as now: reset the clock whenever there's a leap second. > If you reset at noon on leap-second day, the maximum error is 0.5 s. Make that noon UT -- which is midnight in e.g. Alaska, early morning in the continental US, close to noon in Europe and Africa, and evening in the far east. > Systems that have more stringent requirements will need to have a > clock that runs at two different rates: the normal rate on normal days > and the slower rate on leap-second days. Only two rates are needed, > and both rates are exactly known in SI seconds. > > If this scheme were adopted -- and I'm not really offering a serious > proposal -- I'd expect the time services to distribute UTx. Devices > that synch up automatically with the time services would still do > that. Other devices would need to be "told" about the leap seconds > and perform as above. In answer to Paul's comment about distributing > two different times, I'd expect UTC to go out of use. > > Advantages seem to be: no jumps, synchronized with Earth rotation (to > the accuracy of UTC), constant 86400 seconds per day (no 23:59:60), > easily convertible to TAI (given table of leap seconds) or to UTC. If you want a time interval accurate to fractions of a second between date1+time1 and date2+time2, you'll still need to keep track of the "days with a leap second" (i.e. the leap seconds). And if either of date1+time1 and date2+time2 should occur ruing the "days with a leap second", you'll have some additional calculations to do. That procedure win't be any easier than the current one with UTC and leap seconds. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/     Date: 01 Jun 2007 22:23:09 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Steve Willner" <willner@cfa.harvard.edu > wrote in message news:1180732822.074130.269920@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... : : > > Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap : > > second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second : > > 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. : : sla29...@gmail.com wrote: : > How exactly is this scheme going to be implemented? : : I'll put "implementation difficulty" down as a disadvantage. :-) Of : course that applies for any change to the current system. : : For systems that can tolerate time errors of order 1 s, implementation : is the same as now: reset the clock whenever there's a leap second. : If you reset at noon on leap-second day, the maximum error is 0.5 s. London is five hours ahead of the east coast of the USA and 5.5 hours behind Mombai. Which is "noon"? : : Systems that have more stringent requirements will need to have a : clock that runs at two different rates: the normal rate on normal days : and the slower rate on leap-second days. Only two rates are needed, : and both rates are exactly known in SI seconds. : : If this scheme were adopted -- and I'm not really offering a serious : proposal -- I'd expect the time services to distribute UTx. Devices : that synch up automatically with the time services would still do : that. Other devices would need to be "told" about the leap seconds : and perform as above. In answer to Paul's comment about distributing : two different times, I'd expect UTC to go out of use. : : Advantages seem to be: no jumps, synchronized with Earth rotation (to : the accuracy of UTC), constant 86400 seconds per day (no 23:59:60), : easily convertible to TAI (given table of leap seconds) or to UTC. :   Date: 01 Jun 2007 07:56:46 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Jun 1, 7:05 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > http://www.quadibloc.com/science/cal06.htm >From the first post there have been some evident misunderstandings. In the beginning there was not ephemeris time, and ephemeris time was never nailed down in definition very well. It was not equal to UT in 1900, that was only the intent. Practically it turned out more like 1902 or 1903. Time was not as simple as 24:60:60 before 1972, either. There were *always* small steps in every official time scale of every country as the clocks were reset to agree with the meridian transit observations at the observatory. The notion of uniform time was always a conventional ideal (and it still is). > Basically, here is what I now see happening. What Judah Levine posted in the NTP newsgroup is more realistic. Questions not answered, and not really asked, include who wants to admit that clocks are reset, and who is affected if the sun drifts from being overhead at noon, and who cares enough to pay the costs of keeping or changing the current system. There is no easy fix, and even asking the questions is hard because of the lack of common starting point.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 07:05:34 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Guy Macon wrote: > You would have to convince every computer to start using the > new second. Otherwise one using SI time and the other using > Civil time will have a clock offset between them. . Basically, we already have that problem, it seems; you've noted that there *are* rubidium-based clocks being made for some network applications. However, the goal of those clocks is simply to maintain accuracy within one second over a period of time up to a year. And those clocks are referenced to GPS time, which is a form of SI time without leap seconds, so without manual intervention, a computer would get out of step with the present system of civil time, which uses SI seconds, but which also uses leap seconds. I've fleshed out my scheme a little more now on my web site at http://www.quadibloc.com/science/cal06.htm Basically, here is what I now see happening. Time standard A is composed of SI seconds exclusively, and this time standard is still available from sources such as GPS. Leap seconds to keep time standard A in order to keep it in line with mean solar time are, however, now announced *24 months in advance*. Nominal civil time, instead of being time standard A, with certain seconds in that stream of seconds designated as leap seconds, (which is our present UTC, of course) would have the leap seconds uniformly folded into the length of the civil second for the first 360 days of the year. Nominal civil time would be used for classes of applications where the clocks used only keep time to a second a year or less in any case. Where the time of day needs to be specified in applications where that time needs to be within a tiny fraction of a second, the modified UTC, which can now be out of step with mean solar time by a bit more than 0.9 seconds, could still be used. I note on my web site now how one can, with relative simplicity, modify clocks based on either quartz crystals or either Cesium-133 or Rubidium-87 so that when these clocks are calibrated to the SI time, an output that *approximates* nominal civil time (but which will be slightly fast or slow in the first part of the year, and which therefore will revert to the SI second a day or so early or late to keep in step) can be produced by relatively simple logic. So one has a normal quartz crystal in one's unmodified computer. From time to time, one resets the time to correspond to the cesium approximation to nominal civil time, as broadcast over WWV, or, if there is trouble with the radio, you reset the time to correspond to the rubidium approximation to nominal civil time as derived from your local fancy clock. Either way, you end up being out from nominal civil time by at most about 1/180th of a second (a second being applied over 360 days, doing so 2 days too quickly or slowly is +/- one part in 180 of that second). John Savard   Date: 01 Jun 2007 06:25:13 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > Elementary, my dear Blockhead. "I was about to say, as he is unknown to the public." John Savard   Date: 01 Jun 2007 06:21:29 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Guy Macon wrote: > If all previous leap seconds had been leap minutes with the added/ > subtracted minute on the last minute of the year, and assuming that > the error be kept as small as possible (a bit larger than 30 seconds > of error). how many leap minutes would we have had so far, and in > what years? Since 1972, when using leap seconds began, we have had a total of 23 leap seconds. So the answer is that it wouldn't have happened for the first time yet. But perhaps in a few years. John Savard   Date: 01 Jun 2007 06:17:29 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > OK - then how do you define one coulumb? The combined charge of a > certain number of electrons of course, but exactly how many? And once > you've made that definition, how do you realize it when using it as a > primary standard? Yes, if one is going to make a multiple of the electron's charge a fundamental unit, obviously instead of the Coulomb (deriving from a one-newton attraction between two wires carrying a certain current) one should use the Faraday. The electric charge on Avogadro's number of electrons. John Savard     Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:42:32 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180703849.418045.208290@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> OK - then how do you define one coulumb? The combined charge of a >> certain number of electrons of course, but exactly how many? And once >> you've made that definition, how do you realize it when using it as a >> primary standard? > > Yes, if one is going to make a multiple of the electron's charge a > fundamental unit, obviously instead of the Coulomb (deriving from a > one-newton attraction between two wires carrying a certain current) > one should use the Faraday. The electric charge on Avogadro's number > of electrons. > > John Savard One Faraday is equal to 96485.3415 columbs. So if you're going to define a "new Ampere" as one Faraday per second, it would become equal to some 96.5 traditional kA ! The Volt would change too, if we kept the Watt unchanged as being equal to one Newton-meter-second: a "new Volt" would become equal to some 10 traditional micro-Volts! The Faraday may be interesting theoretically, but for practical uses it's just too large. Perhaps the milli-Faraday or micro-Faraday could have been made the fundamental unit - much like the kilo-gram rather than the gram is the fundamental SI unit for mass: the gram is too small to be practical. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/     Date: 01 Jun 2007 09:32:49 From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc wrote: > > Yes, if one is going to make a multiple of the electron's charge a > fundamental unit, obviously instead of the Coulomb (deriving from a > one-newton attraction between two wires carrying a certain current) > one should use the Faraday. The electric charge on Avogadro's number > of electrons. Ouch!   Date: 01 Jun 2007 06:15:47 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > Right? You are absolutely right; forgetting that / takes precedence over +, I failed to put in an extra set of parentheses. John Savard     Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:42:31 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180703747.513252.234220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> Right? > > You are absolutely right; forgetting that / takes precedence over +, I > failed to put in an extra set of parentheses. An extra set of parentheses wouldn't have been needed. But you would have had to make the first set of parentheses: (365*86400)+1/(365*86400) include the "+1": (365*86400+1)/(365*86400) This works because * also takes precedence over + -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:22:03 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second sla29970@gmail.com wrote: >UTC is under the control of the ITU-R. There is no reason to believe (snip) Please stop clicking on Google's send button multiple times. Even if you don't see your post right away, Google has it, and will end up posting multiple copies when it catches up.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:17:10 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote: >Since nobody notices the Equation of Time, why not just ignore the >discrepancy... except, every decade or two, add in a *leap minute*. >That is much less radical than going all the way to leap hours, but it >is sufficiently infrequent as to be much less of an annoyance to those >who need to enter in leap seconds. In my opinion, the above is a large improvement on leap seconds, changing the length of the second, or abandoning all attempts to synchronize atomic time with the earth's rotation. Realistically, we all know that they won't stick with a decision to eliminate leap seconds. Sometime before the two are hours apart the decision *will* be made to synchronize them. If all previous leap seconds had been leap minutes with the added/ subtracted minute on the last minute of the year, and assuming that the error be kept as small as possible (a bit larger than 30 seconds of error). how many leap minutes would we have had so far, and in what years? Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:00:02 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second You would have to convince every computer to start using the new second. Otherwise one using SI time and the other using Civil time will have a clock offset between them. In many network applications, having two computers be off by half of a second can be a Very Bad Thing. Consider a computer that mistakenly concludes that another computer has a newer version of some data and thus overwrites new data with old data. Or a computer that mistakenly concludes that another computer has an older version of the data and thus refuses to update it's copy. Or acomputer that checks the timstamp on some data before overwriting it and sees that it was last updated in the future. Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 31 May 2007 20:54:41 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:38 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > ISTR that according to international agreements UTC must remain > within one second of GMT. UTC is under the control of the ITU-R. There is no reason to believe that the ITU-R currently believes this, and lots of reason to believe that they do not. In part this is due to the fact that there really is no such thing as GMT anymore, at least not as any kind of precision entity. The IAU 2000 reforms for earth rotation pretty much abolished the concept. The reformulations which allow re-creation of the previous entities for earth rotation are now given the name "classical" in order to distinguish them from the currently official conventions. > From memory even a one > second difference between UTC and GMT equates to a quarter mile on > the ground. At 30 minute difference would make traditional navigation > impossible. If "traditional navigation" means using some sort of almanac, then this is not the case. It is straightforward to predict earth rotation to within one second with a five year lookahead, and the pre- publication lead time even for printed almanacs is less than this. Therefore, with or without leap seconds, the almanacs used for "traditional navigation" can easily change their tabulations such that the users of such traditional methods won't notice the change.   Date: 31 May 2007 20:15:14 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:49 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: > That doesn't seem like a bad idea Except that it's basically what broadcast radio signals were doing during all of the 1960s up to the end of 1971 (which was called both UTC and GMT, but was really trying to track UT2). It was unworkable for a number of different reasons. For broadcast time signals it only makes sense to transmit based on the most stable time and frequency interval available to your civilization. The current scheme for UTC makes a lot more sense for broadcast signals. In order to have a civil second approximating the mean solar second it would be necessary to modify the infrastructure for distributing civil time such that it was able to handle both kinds of time. This is a major restructuring of the systems that we use on a daily basis. In the economic, practical, engineering sense it is much simpler to abandon leap seconds (and mean solar time) and implicitly say that any problems caused by this can be handled by folks 20 generations from now. (Of course, they said the same thing about pollution, but my bias is showing.) > leap seconds are rather ugly things for ordinary applications to have to deal with. No. Leap seconds are a form of resetting a clock. They are an acknowlegement of a horological reality which was understood very well by the navigators of the British Navy 200 years ago, but which we somehow seem to have forgotten in the interim. The reality of running a clock is that no two clocks can ever agree, not even if they are co-located in the same reference frame, in the same laboratory (and there is no agreement between clocks in different reference frames). If one clock is deemed more authoritative then the other has to admit a mechanism by which it can change its offset, its rate, or both. To deny that is to live in a fantasy world and risk the consequences of believing in a system that does not correspond to reality. So the issue is a question of who pays how much, and when, with what sorts of short-term and long-term inconveniences.   Date: 31 May 2007 19:35:45 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:38 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > ISTR that according to international agreements UTC must remain > within one second of GMT. UTC is under the control of the ITU-R. There is no reason to believe that the ITU-R currently believes this, and lots of reason to believe that they do not. In part this is due to the fact that there really is no such thing as GMT anymore, at least not as any kind of precision entity. The IAU 2000 reforms for earth rotation pretty much abolished the concept. The reformulations which allow re-creation of the previous entities for earth rotation are now given the name "classical" in order to distinguish them from the currently official conventions. > From memory even a one > second difference between UTC and GMT equates to a quarter mile on > the ground. At 30 minute difference would make traditional navigation > impossible. If "traditional navigation" means using some sort of almanac, then this is not the case. It is straightforward to predict earth rotation to within one second with a five year lookahead, and the pre- publication lead time even for printed almanacs is less than this. Therefore, with or without leap seconds, the almanacs used for "traditional navigation" can easily change their tabulations such that the users of such traditional methods won't notice the change.   Date: 31 May 2007 18:37:44 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second sla29...@gmail.com wrote: > In the economic, practical, engineering sense it is > much simpler to abandon leap seconds (and mean solar time) and > implicitly say that any problems caused by this can be handled by > folks 20 generations from now. (Of course, they said the same thing > about pollution, but my bias is showing.) There is another possibility, a simpler one, that is a compromise between this scheme and what we have at present. Since nobody notices the Equation of Time, why not just ignore the discrepancy... except, every decade or two, add in a *leap minute*. That is much less radical than going all the way to leap hours, but it is sufficiently infrequent as to be much less of an annoyance to those who need to enter in leap seconds. John Savard   Date: 31 May 2007 18:12:13 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Tee Lion wrote: > Androcles wrote: > > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > > > > : and about 365 days in a year. > > > > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years > > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? > > Almost right - do you want to try again ? . Good catch! Yes, it's really every 4 years exactly, except every 100 years, except we put the leap year back in every 400 years. Which is why it is 365.2425 and not 365.2475. John Savard     Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:13:44 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message news:1180660333.096832.295890@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : Tee Lion wrote: : > Androcles wrote: : > > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message : > > : > > : and about 365 days in a year. : > > : > > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years : > > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? : > : > Almost right - do you want to try again ? : . : Good catch! : Yes, it's really every 4 years exactly, except every 100 years, except : we put the leap year back in every 400 years. : : Which is why it is 365.2425 and not 365.2475. : : John Savard Agreed. Good scotch does have some negative effects, but forcing integer ratios between oscillators will never be possible.   Date: 31 May 2007 18:10:30 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > : There are 86,400 seconds in a day, > Not in a sidereal day there are not, althought the "mass of humanity" > has never heard of a sidereal day. They see sun, astronomers look > at the night sky. Yes, but in one way this hardly has anything to do with timekeeping. Of course, in determining the time from the Earth's motions, it *is* the sidereal day that is the uniform one you need to use. But even astronomers need to know when it is night, because some forms of visual observation are hard to do in the day time. > : and about 365 days in a year. > > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? Yes, that's 365.2425 days by the Gregorian calendar, and of course the real tropical year is about 365.2422 days - there are a few more digits we know after the decimal point. > : If we > : add one second to a year, then, that lengthens the year by one part in > : 365 times 86,400. > > I was cautious in warning you, but you were right, you don't think. You're starting to become as annoying as Sherlock Holmes was... John Savard     Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:06:36 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message news:1180660230.502598.56050@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : Androcles wrote: : > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message : > news:1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... : : > : There are 86,400 seconds in a day, : : > Not in a sidereal day there are not, althought the "mass of humanity" : > has never heard of a sidereal day. They see sun, astronomers look : > at the night sky. : : Yes, but in one way this hardly has anything to do with timekeeping. Time doesn't need a keeper or keeping, it passes all by itself. What you are trying to do is count oscillations and force fit them into integer ratios. The square root of 2 cannot be expressed as an integer ratio, why should the second and the period of Ganymede be different? : Of course, in determining the time from the Earth's motions, it *is* : the sidereal day that is the uniform one you need to use. But even : astronomers need to know when it is night, because some forms of : visual observation are hard to do in the day time. : : > : and about 365 days in a year. : > : > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years : > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? : : Yes, that's 365.2425 days by the Gregorian calendar, and of course the : real tropical year is about 365.2422 days - there are a few more : digits we know after the decimal point. I'm saying 54608393 divided by 38613965 = 1.414 213 562 373 094 8116827681384183 and sqrt(2) = 1.414 213 562 373 095 0488016887242097 ---------------------------------------------^ (according to Windows calculator) so there is a slight difference. What does this matter to the "mass of humanity"? It doesn't, of course. It only matters to mathematicians. Catering to the "mass of humanity" with integers has to be an approximation by necessity. : > : If we : > : add one second to a year, then, that lengthens the year by one part in : > : 365 times 86,400. : > : > I was cautious in warning you, but you were right, you don't think. : : You're starting to become as annoying as Sherlock Holmes was... : : John Savard Elementary, my dear Blockhead.     Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:42:12 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180660230.502598.56050@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: Androcles wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > : There are 86,400 seconds in a day, > > Not in a sidereal day there are not, althought the "mass of humanity" > has never heard of a sidereal day. And you seem to never have heard about sidereal seconds... <evil grin > If you're going to involve sidereal days, you might as well involve sidereal seconds too --- and once sidereal day is 86400 sidereal seconds exactly! > They see sun, astronomers look at the night sky. They did some 50-100 years ago, but professional astronomers of today are rarely looking at the sky through their telescopes. Instead they analyse the data pouring out from the instruments attached to the telescopes. Quite often these instruments are on board space probes or space telescopes, making it quite irrelevant whether it's day or night at the astronomer's location when the observation is performed. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 31 May 2007 18:05:06 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second sla29...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 31, 8:49 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > That doesn't seem like a bad idea > > Except that it's basically what broadcast radio signals were doing > during all of the 1960s up to the end of 1971 (which was called both > UTC and GMT, but was really trying to track UT2). It was unworkable > for a number of different reasons. > > For broadcast time signals it only makes sense to transmit based on > the most stable time and frequency interval available to your > civilization. The current scheme for UTC makes a lot more sense for > broadcast signals. In order to have a civil second approximating the > mean solar second it would be necessary to modify the infrastructure > for distributing civil time such that it was able to handle both kinds > of time. This is a major restructuring of the systems that we use on > a daily basis. In the economic, practical, engineering sense it is > much simpler to abandon leap seconds (and mean solar time) and > implicitly say that any problems caused by this can be handled by > folks 20 generations from now. (Of course, they said the same thing > about pollution, but my bias is showing.) . Because I don't think that abandoning mean solar time as a way of abandoning leap seconds is reasonable, I was looking for an alternative. Tracking UT1 or UT2 is indeed unworkable. So what I am proposing is to have a civil second that increases by steps. If there is one leap second in a year by the old system, we increase the length of the civil second by one step. One other possibility, in addition to those I've already mentioned, is this. One second is 9,192,631,770 of a certain type of oscillation of a certain isotope of cesium. That number is 2 * 9 * 5 * 49 * 47 * 44,351. 294 is 2 * 3 * 49, a divisor of that. When a year has *one* leap second, instead we have a civil second of 9,192,631,770 + 294, or 9,192,632,064 cesium oscillations. (Multiples of 294 can be added or subtracted, as need be.) Starting at 0:00:00 January 1st, and ending on 21:24:15 December 28th. (December 27th in a leap year.) Adding a leap second to a year gradually in this way means that at the end of the year, the civil time always returns to an integer offset in seconds from pure atomic time such as GPS time or TAI. As long as you know how many leap seconds have been allocated to a year, there is a *precise mathematical relationship* between civil time and TAI. However, so that leap seconds could be announced 18 months in advance, taking care of the other problem caused by leap seconds not directly dealt with by such a proposal, the discrepancy between civil time and mean solar time, instead of being limited to a maximum of 0.9 seconds, would need to be allowed to be somewhat larger; perhaps 1.5 seconds, perhaps 1.2 seconds. John Savard   Date: 31 May 2007 17:51:32 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Guy Macon wrote: > Many networks have far better accuracy than a quartz crystal > timer does. This is from one of the many available network > time server boxes, specifying holdover accuracy during GPS > outages: > > == start of quote == >   Date: 31 May 2007 17:44:33 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Andrew Smallshaw wrote: > To elaborate on this, now the metre is defined as the distance > light travels in 1/299,792,458 s in a vacuum. So even the metre > would change with a new second and then there's the Newton, amp[1], > Pascal, and countless other derived units. That's obviously a > non-starter. . And I do not propose to change the definition of the SI second. If the second, as used in measurement of frequency, remained shorter than the second used in civil time all the way from 1900 to 1972, at which point civil time was 42.184 seconds ahead of Ephemeris Time, the two starting out even in 1900, then presumably the second of civil time can be different from the second used for measurement in the future as well. John Savard   Date: 31 May 2007 17:42:59 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second sla29...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 31, 2:36 pm, Steve Willner <will...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: . > > Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap > > second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second > > 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. . > This evokes the Sydney Harris cartoon with the blackboard full of > equations, in the middle reading "then a miracle occurs". How exactly > is this scheme going to be implemented? How is this communicated to > systems which can tolerate that much frequency variance, and how is it > prevented from affecting systems which cannot? . His idea is very much like mine, except I suggest that on *years* having a leap second, use a second (365*86400)+1/(365*86400) times longer than the SI second. And then I suggest it could be made more complicated (besides using the SI second on February 29, come what may) so that the "longer" second would be easy to generate from appropriate clocks. Here, the frequency variance is 365 times smaller, and it will affect very few systems. Systems intolerant of frequency variance *usually* don't have to worry about epoch. Systems that are involved in timekeeping usually use quartz oscillators at best, and it is difficult to make them accurate to one second a year. So, basically, the "real" time is communicated to such systems as it is now: check them against WWV once in a while. John Savard     Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:42:12 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180658579.349943.230880@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > His idea is very much like mine, except I suggest that on *years* > having a leap second, use a second (365*86400)+1/(365*86400) times > longer than the SI second. Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (365*86400)+1/(365*86400) = 31536000.00000003170979198376459..... I think you really meant: (365*86400+1)/(365*86400) = 1.000000031709791983764586504313..... or: 1+1/(365*86400) = 1.000000031709791983764586504313..... Right? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 31 May 2007 16:02:08 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:38 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > ISTR that according to international agreements UTC must remain > within one second of GMT. UTC is under the control of the ITU-R. There is no reason to believe that the ITU-R currently believes this, and lots of reason to believe that they do not. In part this is due to the fact that there really is no such thing as GMT anymore, at least not as any kind of precision entity. The IAU 2000 reforms for earth rotation pretty much abolished the concept. The reformulations which allow re-creation of the previous entities for earth rotation are now given the name "classical" in order to distinguish them from the currently official conventions. > From memory even a one > second difference between UTC and GMT equates to a quarter mile on > the ground. At 30 minute difference would make traditional navigation > impossible. If "traditional navigation" means using some sort of almanac, then this is not the case. It is straightforward to predict earth rotation to within one second with a five year lookahead, and the pre- publication lead time even for printed almanacs is less than this. Therefore, with or without leap seconds, the almanacs used for "traditional navigation" can easily change their tabulations such that the users of such traditional methods won't notice the change.   Date: 31 May 2007 21:50:26 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message news:1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... : In the beginning, there was Ephemeris Time. : : Then, it got replaced by TAI. : : Both were made up of seconds the length of which was based on the : length of the second in 1900. But the Earth's rotation has been : slowing down, due to tidal forces. : : Because TAI started off from civil time at the time of its adoption, : while Ephemeris time presumably started on noon, December 31st, 1899, : GMT, a clock showing Ephemeris Time would be 32.184 seconds ahead of : one showing TAI. : : And a clock showing TAI would be 19 seconds ahead of one showing the : time used in the GPS system. : : Civil time switched over to atomic time with inserted leap seconds : when TAI was already 10 seconds ahead of civil time. : : Anyways: a while back, there was a message in these newsgroups about : how a group, shrouding its activities in mystery, came forwards with a : proposal to just forget about leap seconds. We could always adjust our : clocks an hour at a time, if we really felt strongly about wanting : local 12 noon to happen around lunchtime. : : I don't think Be careful saying that. : the mass of humanity really considers it so important to : be "modern" and "scientific" that they would willingly allow the clock : to be independent of the real time of day. Be careful with that, too. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm : But it is true that leap seconds are awkward and confusing. I would : like to suggest an alternative for those whose concerns are precise : ones. : : There are 86,400 seconds in a day, Not in a sidereal day there are not, althought the "mass of humanity" has never heard of a sidereal day. They see sun, astronomers look at the night sky. : and about 365 days in a year. About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? : If we : add one second to a year, then, that lengthens the year by one part in : 365 times 86,400. I was cautious in warning you, but you were right, you don't think. : If In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, in both protasis and apodosis. -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" The best we can do is the system we have.     Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:05:00 From: Tee Lion Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > > : and about 365 days in a year. > > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? Almost right - do you want to try again ?       Date: 01 Jun 2007 00:16:51 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Tee Lion" <teeHeeion@unspammed.com > wrote in message news:5c965mF2v5974U1@mid.individual.net... : Androcles wrote: : > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message : > : > : and about 365 days in a year. : > : > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years : > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? : : [snip] right [snip]. I know I am. No need for you to try again, I can snip better than you.         Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:24:01 From: Tee Lion Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > "Tee Lion" <teeHeeion@unspammed.com> wrote in message > news:5c965mF2v5974U1@mid.individual.net... > : Androcles wrote: > : > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > : > > : > : and about 365 days in a year. > : > > : > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years > : > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? > : > : [snip] right [snip]. > > I know I am. No need for you to try again, I can snip better than you. For the record Years divisible by 100 are NOT leap years, except when they are divisible by 400. Hence 1900 was not a leap year but 2000 was one.         Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:20:48 From: Tee Lion Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > "Tee Lion" <teeHeeion@unspammed.com> wrote in message > news:5c965mF2v5974U1@mid.individual.net... > : Androcles wrote: > : > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > : > > : > : and about 365 days in a year. > : > > : > About? What's this "about"? We have leap days every 4 years > : > exactly, except every 400 years, and you want to talk of "about"? > : > : [snip] right [snip]. > > I know I am. Tee hee! Too old to learn           Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:48:38 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Tee Lion" <teeHeeion@unspammed.com > wrote in message news:5c973aF2vllraU1@mid.individual.net... : > I know I am. : : Tee hee! Too old to learn We have leap days every 4 years exactly, except every 100 years but not every 400 years. Find another new name. "Stooopid Cunt" would suit you. *plonk*             Date: 01 Jun 2007 18:14:54 From: Tee Lion Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Androcles wrote: > "Tee Lion" <teeHeeion@unspammed.com> wrote in message > news:5c973aF2vllraU1@mid.individual.net... > : > I know I am. > : > : Tee hee! Too old to learn > > We have leap days every 4 years exactly, except every 100 years but not > every 400 years. Ah, not too old to learn then. But a shame he can't thank his teacher.   Date: 31 May 2007 14:46:55 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 2:36 pm, Steve Willner <will...@cfa.harvard.edu > wrote: > Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap > second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second > 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. This evokes the Sydney Harris cartoon with the blackboard full of equations, in the middle reading "then a miracle occurs". How exactly is this scheme going to be implemented? How is this communicated to systems which can tolerate that much frequency variance, and how is it prevented from affecting systems which cannot?   Date: 31 May 2007 14:36:56 From: Steve Willner Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second > In article <1180595048.436266.205410@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > I am merely proposing that we change the second of *civil time* Paul Schlyter wrote: > Before 1972, UTC time was adjusted in steps of fractions of a second, > much more frequently than the frequency of leap seconds. It was to > get rid of that mess that leap seconds were introduced. Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. There is, of course, no redefinition of the SI second itself. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using UTx instead of UTC for civil time?     Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:42:11 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180647416.004945.171460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, Steve Willner <willner@cfa.harvard.edu > wrote: >> In article <1180595048.436266.205410@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>> I am merely proposing that we change the second of *civil time* > > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> Before 1972, UTC time was adjusted in steps of fractions of a second, >> much more frequently than the frequency of leap seconds. It was to >> get rid of that mess that leap seconds were introduced. > > Let's consider a new time scale... call it UTx. On days with no leap > second, UTx = UTC. On days having a leap second, UTx uses a second > 86401/86400 times longer than the SI second with no leap second added. > There is, of course, no redefinition of the SI second itself. > > What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using UTx instead of > UTC for civil time? With UTx you would need to adjust the rate of your clock every year with a leap second. With UTC you'd just have to adjust your clock when the leap second occurs. It's easier to set your clock than to adjust the rate of your clock. And in either way you're still dealing with leap seconds. If you want UTx, why not just keep it close enough to UT1 and adjust its rate once a year accordingly, and forget about leap seconds? Introducing yet another timescale is also an inconvenience by itself, since then you'll have one additional time scale to keep track of. You could circumvent this by defining UTx as UT1 -- but then you might just as well say UT1 instead of inventing a new name for it. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 31 May 2007 13:35:57 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:38 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > ISTR that according to international agreements UTC must remain > within one second of GMT. UTC is under the control of the ITU-R. There is no reason to believe that the ITU-R currently believes this, and lots of reason to believe that they do not. In part this is due to the fact that there really is no such thing as GMT anymore, at least not as any kind of precision entity. The IAU 2000 reforms for earth rotation pretty much abolished the concept. The reformulations which allow re-creation of the previous entities for earth rotation are now given the name "classical" in order to distinguish them from the currently official conventions. > From memory even a one > second difference between UTC and GMT equates to a quarter mile on > the ground. At 30 minute difference would make traditional navigation > impossible. If "traditional navigation" means using some sort of almanac, then this is not the case. It is straightforward to predict earth rotation to within one second with a five year lookahead, and the pre- publication lead time even for printed almanacs is less than this. Therefore, with or without leap seconds, the almanacs used for "traditional navigation" can easily change their tabulations such that the users of such traditional methods won't notice the change.   Date: 31 May 2007 18:07:22 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote: >Except for TV stations, that use cesium and rubidium clocks to >maintain their frequency on track (and they wouldn't need to do >anything, because frequency would still be measured in terms of the SI >second, not the second of civil time) nobody else in the private >sector uses anything better than a quartz crystal timer. These are >accurate to about five seconds a year, so changing the length of a >second with an impact of *one* second a year isn't going to impact the >real-time clocks in computers or in Internet routers. > >Instead, only the national time standards people will need to modify >their equipment, so they can generate time signals based on longer >seconds during those years that require them. So the routers on the >Internet would just adjust themselves to WWV from time to time, to >avoid being out of sync, presumably as they do now, but because of the >changed second (in years requiring leap seconds) this adjustment also >automatically takes care of what an explicit recognition of the leap >second would have had to do. Many networks have far better accuracy than a quartz crystal timer does. This is from one of the many available network time server boxes, specifying holdover accuracy during GPS outages: == start of quote ==   Date: 31 May 2007 10:26:56 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 31, 8:49 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: > That doesn't seem like a bad idea Except that it's basically what broadcast radio signals were doing during all of the 1960s up to the end of 1971 (which was called both UTC and GMT, but was really trying to track UT2). It was unworkable for a number of different reasons. For broadcast time signals it only makes sense to transmit based on the most stable time and frequency interval available to your civilization. The current scheme for UTC makes a lot more sense for broadcast signals. In order to have a civil second approximating the mean solar second it would be necessary to modify the infrastructure for distributing civil time such that it was able to handle both kinds of time. This is a major restructuring of the systems that we use on a daily basis. In the economic, practical, engineering sense it is much simpler to abandon leap seconds (and mean solar time) and implicitly say that any problems caused by this can be handled by folks 20 generations from now. (Of course, they said the same thing about pollution, but my bias is showing.) > leap seconds are rather ugly things for ordinary applications to have to deal with. No. Leap seconds are a form of resetting a clock. They are an acknowlegement of a horological reality which was understood very well by the navigators of the British Navy 200 years ago, but which we somehow seem to have forgotten in the interim. The reality of running a clock is that no two clocks can ever agree, not even if they are co-located in the same reference frame, in the same laboratory (and there is no agreement between clocks in different reference frames). If one clock is deemed more authoritative then the other has to admit a mechanism by which it can change its offset, its rate, or both. To deny that is to live in a fantasy world and risk the consequences of believing in a system that does not correspond to reality. So the issue is a question of who pays how much, and when, with what sorts of short-term and long-term inconveniences.   Date: 31 May 2007 15:49:50 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 30 May 2007 17:51:43 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: >Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an >approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra >second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being >an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. >There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead >(adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular >one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second >up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead >to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). Do I understand correctly: you are effectively suggesting a redefinition of the civil second from an interval to a count? That is, instead of a civil second being a certain number of atomic vibrations, it's simply determined by having a fixed, integral number of them in some longer time, like a year? That doesn't seem like a bad idea- leap seconds are rather ugly things for ordinary applications to have to deal with. Seems like we should really just have a formal second, and a formal time that is a count of these seconds from some origin. That's the second used for scientific purposes, and the time used for critical applications (power grid sync, phone service, etc). Civil time could be trivially converted to official time (and vise versa). _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com     Date: 31 May 2007 17:42:23 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <54rt53diq2fr77edc6aquobci4luurgtf6@4ax.com >, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: > On 30 May 2007 17:51:43 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an >> approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra >> second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being >> an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. >> There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead >> (adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular >> one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second >> up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead >> to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). > > Do I understand correctly: you are effectively suggesting a redefinition > of the civil second from an interval to a count? That is, instead of a > civil second being a certain number of atomic vibrations, it's simply > determined by having a fixed, integral number of them in some longer > time, like a year? > > That doesn't seem like a bad idea- leap seconds are rather ugly things > for ordinary applications to have to deal with. Seems like we should > really just have a formal second, and a formal time that is a count of > these seconds from some origin. That's the second used for scientific > purposes, and the time used for critical applications (power grid sync, > phone service, etc). Civil time could be trivially converted to official > time (and vise versa). Having the civil second change length slightly every year would probably be more awkward than the current practice of leap seconds. > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 31 May 2007 08:10:13 From: Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 31 mei, 09:04, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: > Since I am proposing lengthening the second *only in those years with > leap seconds*, obviously I would not seriously propose that the ohm, > volt, et cetera be different in those years too. That would be > insanity, and rest assured I suggest no such thing. > > John Savard But you'd have no choice, what does a frequency counter (piece of electronic equipment show? Pulses per second (Hertz). And these may wel be calibrated against NIST, and some measure in pico seconds, quite a bit of error would show! Now endless arguments would be created if it was your new second or the real second or whatever, The wavelength scale on your radio, basically all other physics constants, you car's km/hour or miles/hour... what not! I say: Forget it:-)   Date: 31 May 2007 06:28:56 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (30 May 2007 17:51:43 -0700) it happened Quadibloc > <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in > <1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>: . > >If we instead increased the length of every *second* in that year by > >the same proportion, we would be making the civil second equal to 1 SI > >second and 31.70979198... SI nanoseconds. . > Huh, now we have a problem every second, while it was only once a year!!!! > Hell electronic counters have to redesign everything. . > Not a good idea :-). . Maybe not, but I am working from the following assumptions: First, since it has been proposed that we just go on straight atomic time, and just use "leap hours" eventually, I take it that it is at least believed by some that: - Leap seconds, as they are now, cause an intolerable inconvenience in some applications, and - Going back to mean solar time is not an option, because it is vague and unpredictable. So, my scheme attempts to meet both those objections. There are also some hidden assumptions: these are - Except for TV stations, that use cesium and rubidium clocks to maintain their frequency on track (and they wouldn't need to do anything, because frequency would still be measured in terms of the SI second, not the second of civil time) nobody else in the private sector uses anything better than a quartz crystal timer. These are accurate to about five seconds a year, so changing the length of a second with an impact of *one* second a year isn't going to impact the real-time clocks in computers or in Internet routers. Instead, only the national time standards people will need to modify their equipment, so they can generate time signals based on longer seconds during those years that require them. So the routers on the Internet would just adjust themselves to WWV from time to time, to avoid being out of sync, presumably as they do now, but because of the changed second (in years requiring leap seconds) this adjustment also automatically takes care of what an explicit recognition of the leap second would have had to do. John Savard     Date: 31 May 2007 15:38:52 From: Andrew Smallshaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 2007-05-31, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > > There are also some hidden assumptions: these are - > > Except for TV stations, that use cesium and rubidium clocks to > maintain their frequency on track (and they wouldn't need to do > anything, because frequency would still be measured in terms of the SI > second, not the second of civil time) nobody else in the private > sector uses anything better than a quartz crystal timer. These are > accurate to about five seconds a year, so changing the length of a > second with an impact of *one* second a year isn't going to impact the > real-time clocks in computers or in Internet routers. A couple of points here. TV stations are not by any means the only people with requirements for precision timekeeping, and in any case TV transmitters don't use atomic clocks in the manner you suggest. Secondly, quartz isn't nearly as accurate as you suggest. A 32.768kHz crystal typically has a quoted accuracy of 10ppm. According to my HP-21 that works out at 315 s a year. That's over five _minutes_. Mechanical clocks are capable of far better accuracy, although of course that depends on precision engineering that comes at a price. > Maybe not, but I am working from the following assumptions: > > First, since it has been proposed that we just go on straight atomic > time, and just use "leap hours" eventually, I take it that it is at > least believed by some that: ISTR that according to international agreements UTC must remain within one second of GMT. This is important for navigational purposes - not everyone uses GPS and in any case many wouldn't wish to depend on it as their sole system (remember GPS can be turned off for civilian purposes at any time). From memory even a one second difference between UTC and GMT equates to a quarter mile on the ground. At 30 minute difference would make traditional navigation impossible. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org       Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:42:11 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <slrnf5tr01.fl8.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org >, Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > Secondly, quartz isn't nearly as accurate as you suggest. A > 32.768kHz crystal typically has a quoted accuracy of 10ppm. > According to my HP-21 that works out at 315 s a year. That's over > five _minutes_. Mechanical clocks are capable of far better > accuracy, although of course that depends on precision engineering > that comes at a price. A mass-produced uncalibrated quartz crystal carried around in a quite wide range of temperatures can indeed be that inaccurate. But you're unfair if you compare such a quartz crystal with a carefully manufactured and maintained mechanical clockwork. Instead, compare it to the typical Rolex mechanical wristwatch worn by those who are more interested in exposing their wealth than in accurate time - how accurate are these Rolex watches? A Timex quartz watch will be more accurate. A carefully maunfactured and calibrated quartz crystal, kept in a temperature controlled environment, will be much more accurate than you suggest. Of course, that too comes at a price - but an organisation which dependes on accurate time wouldn't use a Timex quartz watch as a time reference, would it? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/         Date: 01 Jun 2007 15:20:36 From: Andrew Smallshaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 2007-06-01, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote: > A mass-produced uncalibrated quartz crystal carried around in a quite > wide range of temperatures can indeed be that inaccurate. But you're > unfair if you compare such a quartz crystal with a carefully > manufactured and maintained mechanical clockwork. Instead, compare it > to the typical Rolex mechanical wristwatch worn by those who are more > interested in exposing their wealth than in accurate time - how > accurate are these Rolex watches? A Timex quartz watch will be more > accurate. Although accurate machining is important, a mechanical clock can be made more accurate than than its machining because they are adjustable. For a pocket or wrist watch this would mean tweaking the hairspring - this is usually user-adjustable for those that care about such things. For a pendulum clock this is done by adjusting the pendulum length or by adding or removing weights (which effectively do the same thing by moving the centre of mass) - Big Ben is adjusted with coins for instance. Quartz, OTOH, is effectively luck of the draw and take it or leave it. You can modify the crystal but as they are sealed units you usually have to get a new crystal and hope that that one is more accurate. There isn't any sense of "almost there, just a slight tweak needed" in the process. > A carefully maunfactured and calibrated quartz crystal, kept in a > temperature controlled environment, will be much more accurate than > you suggest. Of course, that too comes at a price - but an > organisation which dependes on accurate time wouldn't use a Timex > quartz watch as a time reference, would it? I would agree with you there. They can but often aren't. My everyday (quartz) wristwatch loses around 800ms per month, though I suspect that is more due to good luck on my particular example than anything to do with quality control. My previous watch from the same manufacturer (Seiko) consistently lost a second every five days. Still fairly accurate (difficult for a _cheap_ mechanical clock to match) but it shows the inconsistency inherent in quartz designs. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org           Date: 01 Jun 2007 20:12:55 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <slrnf60e9n.47e.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org >, Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > On 2007-06-01, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote: > >> A mass-produced uncalibrated quartz crystal carried around in a quite >> wide range of temperatures can indeed be that inaccurate. But you're >> unfair if you compare such a quartz crystal with a carefully >> manufactured and maintained mechanical clockwork. Instead, compare it >> to the typical Rolex mechanical wristwatch worn by those who are more >> interested in exposing their wealth than in accurate time - how >> accurate are these Rolex watches? A Timex quartz watch will be more >> accurate. > > Although accurate machining is important, a mechanical clock can > be made more accurate than than its machining because they are > adjustable. For a pocket or wrist watch this would mean tweaking > the hairspring - this is usually user-adjustable for those that > care about such things. For a pendulum clock this is done by > adjusting the pendulum length or by adding or removing weights > (which effectively do the same thing by moving the centre of mass) > - Big Ben is adjusted with coins for instance. > > Quartz, OTOH, is effectively luck of the draw and take it or leave > it. You can modify the crystal but as they are sealed units you > usually have to get a new crystal and hope that that one is more > accurate. There isn't any sense of "almost there, just a slight > tweak needed" in the process. There are ways to tweak the frequency slightly of any quartz crystal. It's usually done with a suitably connected variable capacitor. I've tweaked the rate of several of the quartz watches I've owned in my life. Unfortunately, this variable capacitor is often absent in modern cheap quartz wristwatches, so regarding such watches you are right. Otoh a cheap wristwatch is rarely used as a time standard.... ;-) >> A carefully maunfactured and calibrated quartz crystal, kept in a >> temperature controlled environment, will be much more accurate than >> you suggest. Of course, that too comes at a price - but an >> organisation which dependes on accurate time wouldn't use a Timex >> quartz watch as a time reference, would it? > > I would agree with you there. They can but often aren't. My > everyday (quartz) wristwatch loses around 800ms per month, though > I suspect that is more due to good luck on my particular example > than anything to do with quality control. My previous watch from > the same manufacturer (Seiko) consistently lost a second every five > days. Still fairly accurate (difficult for a _cheap_ mechanical > clock to match) but it shows the inconsistency inherent in quartz > designs. Try to open up your watch and see if there's a small variable capacitor in there you can adjust. If your watch is not among the cheap ones, it may be there. If it's there you can make your watch run better. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/           Date: 01 Jun 2007 19:57:34 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Andrew Smallshaw wrote: >Although accurate machining is important, a mechanical clock can >be made more accurate than than its machining because they are >adjustable. For a pocket or wrist watch this would mean tweaking >the hairspring - this is usually user-adjustable for those that >care about such things. For a pendulum clock this is done by >adjusting the pendulum length or by adding or removing weights >(which effectively do the same thing by moving the centre of mass) >- Big Ben is adjusted with coins for instance. > >Quartz, OTOH, is effectively luck of the draw and take it or leave >it. You can modify the crystal but as they are sealed units you >usually have to get a new crystal and hope that that one is more >accurate. There isn't any sense of "almost there, just a slight >tweak needed" in the process. How, then, was I able to open my Casio DBC-W150 digital watch, adjust the variable capacitor, and thus get the error down to less than half a second per month? Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >             Date: 01 Jun 2007 20:07:22 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > >Andrew Smallshaw wrote: > >>Although accurate machining is important, a mechanical clock can >>be made more accurate than than its machining because they are >>adjustable. For a pocket or wrist watch this would mean tweaking >>the hairspring - this is usually user-adjustable for those that >>care about such things. For a pendulum clock this is done by >>adjusting the pendulum length or by adding or removing weights >>(which effectively do the same thing by moving the centre of mass) >>- Big Ben is adjusted with coins for instance. >> >>Quartz, OTOH, is effectively luck of the draw and take it or leave >>it. You can modify the crystal but as they are sealed units you >>usually have to get a new crystal and hope that that one is more >>accurate. There isn't any sense of "almost there, just a slight >>tweak needed" in the process. > >How, then, was I able to open my Casio DBC-W150 digital watch, >adjust the variable capacitor, and thus get the error down to >less than half a second per month? I should also point out that many watches do this enirely in the digital realm with an internal table that adds or subtracts cycles (each of which is 1/32768 of a second) from the count. The best ones have can add/subtract cycles on the second, minute, hour, day, or any combination. This allows the designer to specify a crystal with excellent stability but poor accuracy, thus reducing the cost of the watch. Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >           Date: 01 Jun 2007 15:58:50 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:20:36 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: >Quartz, OTOH, is effectively luck of the draw and take it or leave >it. You can modify the crystal but as they are sealed units you >usually have to get a new crystal and hope that that one is more >accurate. There isn't any sense of "almost there, just a slight >tweak needed" in the process. Not so. No quartz resonator has infinite Q. There's a range of frequencies about the center that can be selected by the choice of surrounding components. Any quartz resonator based clock of reasonable design can be adjusted just like a mechanical clock (but will be much more stable). _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 31 May 2007 20:56:46 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Andrew Smallshaw wrote: >Secondly, quartz isn't nearly as accurate as you suggest. A >32.768kHz crystal typically has a quoted accuracy of 10ppm. >According to my HP-21 that works out at 315 s a year. That's over >five _minutes_. That's over a wider temperature than a watch sees. A typical low-cost Casio watch spec is +/- 15 seconds per month, and they often do better than +/- 5 seconds per month in use.     Date: 31 May 2007 10:43:33 From: Dave Jessie Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second John Savard wrote: > snip logical discussion of 'time' < > So, my scheme attempts to meet both those objections. > > There are also some hidden assumptions: these are - > snip < Hi John, I don't know about this...I'm going to wait for Oriel to ring in with his opinion. ;^) Clear Dark Steady Skies, Dave Jessie   Date: 31 May 2007 10:00:45 From: Jan Panteltje Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On a sunny day (30 May 2007 17:51:43 -0700) it happened Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in <1180572703.478386.110100@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com >: >If we instead increased the length of every *second* in that year by >the same proportion, we would be making the civil second equal to 1 SI >second and 31.70979198... SI nanoseconds. Huh, now we have a problem every second, while it was only once a year!!!! Hell electronic counters have to redesign everything. Not a good idea :-).   Date: 31 May 2007 00:11:19 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > But hey! You wanted to go decimal, right? Why should one quadrant be > 90 degrees? Why not, say, 100 degrees instead? There is actually > such a measure for angles - it's called gons, or (sometimes) "new > degrees": one quadrant is 100 degrees and one revolution is 400 > degrees. Sometimes this has been used for surveying, and there it > fits neatly: while one degree of latitude on the Earth's surface is > some 111 km, one "new degree" is very close to 100 km and one "new > minute" (equal to 1/100 "new degree" of course) is very close to 1 km. . > So the decimal angular units are already there - you just have to start > using them! :-) . I thought they were called "grads". But, in any case, since you are apparently a stickler for SI units, you should of course know that the official unit for angular measure, the one that fits with everything else in the metric system, is the *radian*. Of course, it is a little awkward that the number of radians in a right angle, or indeed any aliquot part of the circle, is an irrational, even transcendental, number. One could include pi explicitly in descriptions of angles to get out of this; then, an angle would be called "N pi radians". Since the circle contains 2 pi radians, a protractor with 100 big marks on it to cover 180 degrees, instead of 200 marks, would make sense, covering the expanse from 0 to 1 pi radians. John Savard     Date: 31 May 2007 17:42:23 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180595479.238836.214660@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> But hey! You wanted to go decimal, right? Why should one quadrant be >> 90 degrees? Why not, say, 100 degrees instead? There is actually >> such a measure for angles - it's called gons, or (sometimes) "new >> degrees": one quadrant is 100 degrees and one revolution is 400 >> degrees. Sometimes this has been used for surveying, and there it >> fits neatly: while one degree of latitude on the Earth's surface is >> some 111 km, one "new degree" is very close to 100 km and one "new >> minute" (equal to 1/100 "new degree" of course) is very close to 1 km. >. >> So the decimal angular units are already there - you just have to start >> using them! :-) >. > I thought they were called "grads". They are -- that's another name for them. > But, in any case, since you are apparently a stickler for SI units, > you should of course know that the official unit for angular measure, > the one that fits with everything else in the metric system, is the > *radian*. If astronomy would go completely metric, it would have to abandon units like the AU, the solar mass, the parsec, ..... <g > > Of course, it is a little awkward that the number of radians in a > right angle, or indeed any aliquot part of the circle, is an > irrational, even transcendental, number. One could include pi > explicitly in descriptions of angles to get out of this; then, an > angle would be called "N pi radians". Since the circle contains 2 pi > radians, a protractor with 100 big marks on it to cover 180 degrees, > instead of 200 marks, would make sense, covering the expanse from 0 to > 1 pi radians. > > John Savard -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 31 May 2007 00:04:08 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second Paul Schlyter wrote: > Changing the length of the second is out of the question!!! Why? > Because a change in the length of the second would affect so many > other units which all depend on the second. I'm not proposing that we change the length of a second for purposes of measuring speed and acceleration, so as to change the value of the newton relative to the meter, or to change the volt, the ohm, the joule, or so on. I am merely proposing that we change the second of *civil time* so that it is longer than the 1900 second of Ephemeris Time, also the SI second. That is simply *going back* to the situation we had before atomic time, with leap seconds, was adopted in 1972. The difference is simply that to compromise with our world in which things are measured with greater precision, I propose that instead of having a second that gradually increases in length in a somewhat messy and indeterminate way, let us have a time scale that is still tied closely to TAI, but by changing the length of the civil second in a controlled manner, so as to produce an effect essentially equivalent to having leap seconds. Since I am proposing lengthening the second *only in those years with leap seconds*, obviously I would not seriously propose that the ohm, volt, et cetera be different in those years too. That would be insanity, and rest assured I suggest no such thing. John Savard     Date: 31 May 2007 17:42:23 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180595048.436266.205410@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> Changing the length of the second is out of the question!!! Why? >> Because a change in the length of the second would affect so many >> other units which all depend on the second. > > I'm not proposing that we change the length of a second for purposes > of measuring speed and acceleration, so as to change the value of the > newton relative to the meter, or to change the volt, the ohm, the > joule, or so on. > > I am merely proposing that we change the second of *civil time* so > that it is longer than the 1900 second of Ephemeris Time, also the SI > second. That is simply *going back* to the situation we had before > atomic time, with leap seconds, was adopted in 1972. Before 1972, UTC time was adjusted in steps of fractions of a second, much more frequently than the frequency of leap seconds. It was to get rid of that mess that leap seconds were introduced. > The difference is simply that to compromise with our world in which > things are measured with greater precision, I propose that instead of > having a second that gradually increases in length in a somewhat messy > and indeterminate way, let us have a time scale that is still tied > closely to TAI, but by changing the length of the civil second in a > controlled manner, so as to produce an effect essentially equivalent > to having leap seconds. > > Since I am proposing lengthening the second *only in those years with > leap seconds*, obviously I would not seriously propose that the ohm, > volt, et cetera be different in those years too. That would be > insanity, and rest assured I suggest no such thing. And how would you determine which years are "those years with a leap second"? Yep, that process too is as unpredictable as the leap seconds. So there would be a need to transform the information about how long a second will last this year ..... it would be just as awkward as the leap seconds themselves. I think applications which really need a time accuracy better than a few seconds over long time interval should use TT, TAI, GPS time, or some other suitable *uniform* time scale *without* *leap* *seconds*! All other applications, where it doesn't matter whether the time is off by a few seconds, should adjust for leap seconds whenever they occur, but ignore leap seconds when computing the time interval between two instants - much like the UNIX time() family of funtions do today. > John Savard -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/   Date: 30 May 2007 18:56:52 From: thad@thadlabs.com Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On May 30, 5:51 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: > [...] > Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an > approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra > second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being > an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. > There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead > (adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular > one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second > up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead > to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). > > John Savard Why not simultaneously go decimal for time? For example: 100 new seconds to a new minute, 100 new minutes to a new hour, and, say, 10 new hours in a standard day. The present use of 60/60/24 is archaic. Gawd only knows what that'd do to RA and Dec. :-)     Date: 31 May 2007 22:10:27 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second <thad@thadlabs.com > wrote in message news:1180576612.338293.155440@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : On May 30, 5:51 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote: : > [...] : > Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an : > approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra : > second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being : > an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. : > There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead : > (adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular : > one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second : > up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead : > to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). : > : > John Savard : : Why not simultaneously go decimal for time? : : For example: 100 new seconds to a new minute, 100 new minutes to a : new hour, and, say, 10 new hours in a standard day. The present use : of 60/60/24 is archaic. : : Gawd only knows what that'd do to RA and Dec. :-) Simple: make pi = 3 and use radians. I get the impression "Quadibloc" may have calluses on his knuckles and an opposable big toe, making 14Hex rather than 12 base 8 better for him, it fairly obvious what is being counted on here: http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/images/pic-opposable-big-toe.jpg     Date: 31 May 2007 06:42:26 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <1180576612.338293.155440@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, thad@thadlabs.com <thad@thadlabs.com > wrote: > On May 30, 5:51 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> [...] >> Since I'm proposing changing the length of a second, though, by an >> approximation, rather than the *exact* proportion that adding an extra >> second would make, this would not lead to TAI minus civil time being >> an integer number of seconds at least at the start of each new year. >> There are two possible cures: use the exact proportion instead >> (adjusted in leap years!), or switch from a longer second to a regular >> one before the end of the year (for example, splitting the leap second >> up among all the seconds of the first 360 days of the year would lead >> to an "even" lengthening of the second in some senses). >> >> John Savard Changing the length of the second is out of the question!!! Why? Because a change in the length of the second would affect so many other units which all depend on the second. One can look at the history of the meter as an example: one meter was originally supposed to be one ten-millionth of the length of a meridian on the Earth, from equator to pole. Realizing that each time a meter prototype was needed would be too awkward though, so instead a meter prototype was manufactured and used as the primary standard. A few decades later it turned out that the meter prototype had been manufactured erroneously, so that it was some fraction of a millimeter too short. But instead of "correcting the error", one let the meter prototype become the new standard, and the length of the Earth's meridians, from equator to pole, became slightly longer than ten million meters. Since then the meter has been redefined twice and we're no longer dependent on some particular physical object for the definition of the meter. But in each of these redefinitions of the meter, great care was taken to not change the length of the meter, i.e. the length of the "new meter" should be equal to the length of the "old meter", to the accuracy of the old definition. The only time the meter changed length significantly was when that first meter prototype was manufactured. You just don't change the size of a fundamental unit! > Why not simultaneously go decimal for time? > > For example: 100 new seconds to a new minute, 100 new minutes to a > new hour, and, say, 10 new hours in a standard day. Sorry, but it's too late! The French succeeded in getting its metric system (which originated from the time around the French revolution) accepted by the world. But they failed to get its revolutionary calendar accepted - it was used only in France and even there it was abandoned after only a few decades. The French revolutionary calendar did have the properties you're asking for: 100 new seconds to a new minute, 100 new minutes to a new hour, and, say, 10 new hours in a standard day. But it went further than that: one week was 10 days, one month was 3 weeks of 10 days each i.e. 30 days, and one year was 12 months of 30 days each, i.e. 360 days -- plus 5 or 6 "revolutionary days" at the end of the year, which were outside all weeks and months. > The present use of 60/60/24 is archaic. ...but it does have some advantages: you can quite easily split up an hour in 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 equal parts - they'll become 30, 20, 15, 12, and 10 minutes each. If an hour was 100 minutes, the parts would become 50, 33+1/3, 25, 20, and 16+2/3 minutes each. Personally I think (although I of course know this won't happen) that we really should switch from the decimal (base 10) to a duodecimal (base 12) system for representing numbers - that would bring the advantage of easy divisibility by 2, 3 and 4. The sexagesimal (base 60) system brings easy divisibility by 5 and 6 as well. Btw, in the duodecimal system one hour will be equal to 50 minutes, since 50-base12 equals 60-base10. And one day would be equal to 20 hours, since 20-base12 equals 24-base10. Wouldn't that be something? > Gawd only knows what that'd do to RA and Dec. :-) You could always switch to degrees and fractions of degrees... :-) But hey! You wanted to go decimal, right? Why should one quadrant be 90 degrees? Why not, say, 100 degrees instead? There is actually such a measure for angles - it's called gons, or (sometimes) "new degrees": one quadrant is 100 degrees and one revolution is 400 degrees. Sometimes this has been used for surveying, and there it fits neatly: while one degree of latitude on the Earth's surface is some 111 km, one "new degree" is very close to 100 km and one "new minute" (equal to 1/100 "new degree" of course) is very close to 1 km. So the decimal angular units are already there - you just have to start using them! :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/       Date: 04 Jun 2007 01:34:54 From: Odysseus Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <f3lphm$21hf$1@merope.saaf.se >, pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote: <snip > > > But hey! You wanted to go decimal, right? Why should one quadrant be > 90 degrees? Why not, say, 100 degrees instead? There is actually > such a measure for angles - it's called gons, or (sometimes) "new > degrees": one quadrant is 100 degrees and one revolution is 400 > degrees. Sometimes this has been used for surveying, and there it > fits neatly: while one degree of latitude on the Earth's surface is > some 111 km, one "new degree" is very close to 100 km and one "new > minute" (equal to 1/100 "new degree" of course) is very close to 1 km. > > So the decimal angular units are already there - you just have to start > using them! :-) "Been there, done that." In 1979 I had a summer job as field-assistant to a geologist doing stratigraphy; the clinometer we used for all our dip & strike readings was marked in grads (IME the most common name for the unit you describe above). I don't know whether or not that was then, or is now, the convention among geologists. The software that analyzed our data likely converted them to radians, but it was a 'black box' to me. -- Odysseus       Date: 31 May 2007 15:05:52 From: Andrew Smallshaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 2007-05-31, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote: > > definition of the meter. But in each of these redefinitions of the > meter, great care was taken to not change the length of the meter, > i.e. the length of the "new meter" should be equal to the length of > the "old meter", to the accuracy of the old definition. The only time > the meter changed length significantly was when that first meter > prototype was manufactured. To elaborate on this, now the metre is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 s in a vacuum. So even the metre would change with a new second and then there's the Newton, amp[1], Pascal, and countless other derived units. That's obviously a non-starter. [1] I consider here the amp as a derived unit and the coulomb fundamental. This is the opposite to the way I believe it is defined but much more logical. If you used the official definition then the coulomb would have to change. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org         Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:42:11 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second In article <slrnf5tp25.fl8.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org >, Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote: > [1] I consider here the amp as a derived unit and the coulomb > fundamental. This is the opposite to the way I believe it is > defined but much more logical. If you used the official definition > then the coulomb would have to change. OK - then how do you define one coulumb? The combined charge of a certain number of electrons of course, but exactly how many? And once you've made that definition, how do you realize it when using it as a primary standard? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/           Date: 02 Jun 2007 15:46:37 From: Andrew Smallshaw Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second On 2007-06-01, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote: > In article <slrnf5tp25.fl8.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>, > Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > >> [1] I consider here the amp as a derived unit and the coulomb >> fundamental. This is the opposite to the way I believe it is >> defined but much more logical. If you used the official definition >> then the coulomb would have to change. > > OK - then how do you define one coulumb? The combined charge of a > certain number of electrons of course, but exactly how many? And once > you've made that definition, how do you realize it when using it as a > primary standard? It makes sense to me, although of course it is a metter of perspective and that will differ from person to person. Current may be described as a rate of flow of charge, potential as energy per unit of charge transferred, but what is charge? You can't break charge down any further - it's simply a property of certain types of matter and that's as far as you can go - even the physicists can't define exactly what charge is, which is why I believe it should be considered fundamental. So you end up with our Coulomb being defined as a certain multiple of the electron charge, the volt defined as Joules per Coulomb (the Joule being defined mechanically so we don't need to consider it here), and the amp defined as charge transferred per unit time. P=IV would still work regardless of exact charge the Coulomb was defined as since the charges cancel each other out in the calculation. Coulomb's Law isn't helpful to the definitions as someone else mentioned since constants of proportionality are already involved. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org             Date: 02 Jun 2007 17:12:47 From: Androcles Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second "Andrew Smallshaw" <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote in message news:slrnf6346f.dq.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org... : On 2007-06-01, Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote: : > In article <slrnf5tp25.fl8.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>, : > Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: : > : >> [1] I consider here the amp as a derived unit and the coulomb : >> fundamental. This is the opposite to the way I believe it is : >> defined but much more logical. If you used the official definition : >> then the coulomb would have to change. : > : > OK - then how do you define one coulumb? The combined charge of a : > certain number of electrons of course, but exactly how many? And once : > you've made that definition, how do you realize it when using it as a : > primary standard? : : It makes sense to me, although of course it is a metter of perspective : and that will differ from person to person. Current may be described : as a rate of flow of charge, potential as energy per unit of charge : transferred, but what is charge? You can't break charge down any : further - it's simply a property of certain types of matter and : that's as far as you can go - even the physicists can't define : exactly what charge is, which is why I believe it should be considered : fundamental. : : So you end up with our Coulomb being defined as a certain multiple : of the electron charge, the volt defined as Joules per Coulomb (the : Joule being defined mechanically so we don't need to consider it : here), and the amp defined as charge transferred per unit time. : : P=IV would still work regardless of exact charge the Coulomb was : defined as since the charges cancel each other out in the calculation. : : Coulomb's Law isn't helpful to the definitions as someone else : mentioned since constants of proportionality are already involved. : : -- : Andrew Smallshaw : andrews@sdf.lonestar.org http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html "The SI is founded on seven SI base units for seven base quantities assumed to be mutually independent, as given in Table 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. SI base units -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SI base unit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Base quantity Name Symbol length meter m mass kilogram kg time second s electric current ampere A thermodynamic temperature kelvin K amount of substance mole mol luminous intensity candela cd " In table 3: "electric charge, quantity of electricity coulomb C - s·A" and so you have to multiply amps by seconds to arrive at coulombs. The ampere is derived as one coloumb per second in the same way as the knot is derived as one nautical mile per hour, hence I agree with you that the coulomb in more fundamental and NIST is a screwball outfit. I recall a definition of the coloumb in terms of the weight of metal deposited during electro-plating, thus linking it to the mole, but cannot find it on the web. One Farad is equal to an increase of one volt when a charge of one coulomb is applied. This is independent of time and hence independent of the ampere.     Date: 31 May 2007 06:37:14 From: Davoud Subject: Re: Avoiding the Leap Second thad: > Why not simultaneously go decimal for time? > > For example: 100 new seconds to a new minute, 100 new minutes to a > new hour, and, say, 10 new hours in a standard day. The present use > of 60/60/24 is archaic. A bit of quibbling over a leap second notwithstanding, our method of measuring and reporting time is not broken. It is understood by more people by far than any other international standard. > Gawd only knows what that'd do to RA and Dec. :-) Can you imagine the $cost of such a change!? The veritable mind boggles. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com