| |
Main
Date: 03 Jun 2007 13:30:32
From: Guy Macon
Subject: The Leap Millisecond
|
(While researching this, I came across the leap second list
at [ http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000 ],
which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>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.
An excellent scheme. Let me be the first to say that I approve.
Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
of the other minutes using leap seconds.
Here is what I like about this scheme:
The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
nanosecond, etc. Those are much more commonly used than the
second is in the areas of physics and engineering. In the area
of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than most of
the other minutes, hours or days. This is a thousand times closer
than under the leap second scheme. Months and years would be ten
times closer.
References:
The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:
http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
(also touches on GPS)
The Future of Leap Seconds
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
Propagation of a leap second
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
Leap Second Mailing List:
http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 10:07:14
From: Stuart Levy
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>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.
But... but... then instead of having a small number of whole leap
seconds, which could relatively easily be communicated or
listed in a table, we'd have an *enormous* number of leap milliseconds.
And they'd be almost-but-not-quite uniformly distributed.
Consider how you would compute the precise (to the microsecond, say)
interval in time between two distant time points. You'd have
to take thousands of millisecond glitches into account.
For human-precision purposes, a leap second doesn't matter,
and for high-precision purposes, it's surely much easier to
have a small number of time glitches than a huge number of them.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jul 2007 02:45:31
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
On 15 Jul 2007 10:07:14 -0500, Stuart Levy <s_levy@ameritech.net > wrote,
in part:
>For human-precision purposes, a leap second doesn't matter,
>and for high-precision purposes, it's surely much easier to
>have a small number of time glitches than a huge number of them.
Well, the claim was made that the Internet would collapse because too
many network operators forget to tell their computers about leap
seconds. So, if we have smaller time glitches, they could just let their
clocks run slow - and setting the clocks by the WWV time periodically,
as they already do, would cause no sudden jumps.
But it does seem that my scheme is too similar to "Stepped Atomic Time",
which was a failure, because it relies upon 100 millisecond steps, even
if those are cut into small pieces in my scheme and not in that. Steps
that size prevent adequate advance notice from being given.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:12:35
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
In article <46a02136.3104816@news.aioe.org >,
John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid > wrote:
> Well, the claim was made that the Internet would collapse because too
> many network operators forget to tell their computers about leap
> seconds.
That claim is obviously bogus.
If you forget to tell your computer about a leap second, it means the
computer's system clock will be one second off for some time (assuming
the system clock ran correctly before the leap second).
Now, there must already be a vast number of Internet connected
computers whose system clocks are off by a second or more. And the
Internet hasn't collapsed yet.....
The Internet was designed to be robust, right? And then the Internet
cannot critically depend on almost all of its connected computers
having their system clocks being off by less than one second.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 16:18:21
From: mitch
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
Nobody gives a hoot about leap seconds'
"Stuart Levy" <s_levy@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:469a3822@news.mcleodusa.net...
> In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
> the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> But... but... then instead of having a small number of whole leap
> seconds, which could relatively easily be communicated or
> listed in a table, we'd have an *enormous* number of leap milliseconds.
> And they'd be almost-but-not-quite uniformly distributed.
>
> Consider how you would compute the precise (to the microsecond, say)
> interval in time between two distant time points. You'd have
> to take thousands of millisecond glitches into account.
>
> For human-precision purposes, a leap second doesn't matter,
> and for high-precision purposes, it's surely much easier to
> have a small number of time glitches than a huge number of them.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 10:30:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
oriel36 wrote:
quoting me:
> > Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
> > Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
> > the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
> > Atomic Time?
.
> There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
> by Flamsteed,specifically -
.
> "... 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... " Flamsteed 1677
.
> No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
> adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
> no astronomical authority exists at present.
.
It's true that Flamsteed wasn't quite right. The revolutions of the
Earth are not absolutely uniform in time. Our atomic clocks show that
the Earth's rotation is slowing down, due to tidal forces from the
Moon, in an imperceptible manner, and also there are variations due to
the effects of seasonal winds, leading to the UT1-UT2 correction.
However, these effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the
Equation of Time. Compared to the regular solar day, which can move
ahead or behind up to 15 minutes in the course of a year, the sidereal
day *is* very nearly isochronous - in point of fact. Transit circle
observations and the like have indeed provided solid proof that the
Earth's rotation compared to the stars is highly uniform, unlike solar
time which includes the effects recorded in the Equation of Time.
> It would be a lot easier to get the
> magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
> promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
> Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
> have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
> responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.
.
The reason we seem so "indoctrinated" to you is because the theory
which you view, for some reason, as flawed _is not_ flawed, but does
accurately describe the Solar System. We *understand* Newton and
Flamsteed, and we know there is not, in them, the least contradiction
to anything in Copernicus or Huyghens, just an amplification and a
carrying further of their beautiful insights. You have stumbled over
something in your understanding, so you fail to see this. But you do
not explain yourself clearly enough even for me to see where your
mistake is - or, if you *are* the one who is right, to make me see my
mistake.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 03:54:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
On Jun 9, 7:30 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> quoting me:> > Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
> > > Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
> > > the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
> > > Atomic Time?
> .
> > There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
> > by Flamsteed,specifically -
> .
> > "... 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... " Flamsteed 1677
> .
> > No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
> > adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
> > no astronomical authority exists at present.
>
> .
> It's true that Flamsteed wasn't quite right. The revolutions of the
> Earth are not absolutely uniform in time. Our atomic clocks show that
> the Earth's rotation is slowing down, due to tidal forces from the
> Moon, in an imperceptible manner, and also there are variations due to
> the effects of seasonal winds, leading to the UT1-UT2 correction.
>
The principles always remain the same whether it is pendulum clocks or
atomic clocks insofar as the inviolate correlation which keeps clocks
in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes will always be
15 degrees per hour ,4 minutes for each degree of geographical
seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.To argue to the contrary ,and
your entire community does this,assures that this is the dark ages of
Western civilisation in so many ways.
> However, these effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the
> Equation of Time. Compared to the regular solar day, which can move
> ahead or behind up to 15 minutes in the course of a year, the sidereal
> day *is* very nearly isochronous - in point of fact. Transit circle
> observations and the like have indeed provided solid proof that the
> Earth's rotation compared to the stars is highly uniform, unlike solar
> time which includes the effects recorded in the Equation of Time.
>
I am indebted to you for continuing to demonstrate just how awful the
situation is ,where humanity and especially children are indoctrinated
into an idea that the noon cycles are alike.The website of Nasa
explaining the cult view which derives directly from Flamsteed -
"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
There is only the difference between the inequality in the noon cycle
and it equalisation over an annual orbit to a human devised 24 hour
day cycle.It is supposed to be the most fundamental astronomical
timekeeping principle yet the cult idea believes that a location
rotates to noon in 24 hours -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
This is supposed to be shocking,an outrage and a mistake so obvious
that in any other circumstances it would provoke the type of
discussion that any individual could become involved in yet all that
exists in one person trying to promote the correct ideals to a group
that willingly sticks with a concept that would have puzzled our
ancestors no end - the inability to grasp how the 24 hour days emerges
from the variations in the noon cycle.
> > It would be a lot easier to get the
> > magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
> > promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
> > Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
> > have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
> > responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.
>
> .
> The reason we seem so "indoctrinated" to you is because the theory
> which you view, for some reason, as flawed _is not_ flawed, but does
> accurately describe the Solar System. We *understand* Newton and
> Flamsteed, and we know there is not, in them, the least contradiction
> to anything in Copernicus or Huyghens, just an amplification and a
> carrying further of their beautiful insights.
The astrological geometry on which Newton hung his concepts is not
supported by any observation insofar as the axial and orbital of the
motions of the Earth do not correspond and cannot be justified by a
23 hour 56 minute 04 second value.
Although all holocausts find their ideologies through individual
doctrines, a holocaust is effectively a mass movement of people acting
out an artificial set of principles without regard for a background
heritage or where it is going,a blind monster that vandalises all
ahead of it with no purpose only the perverse satisfaction of enjoying
the power to do so.
This particualr holocaust does have a distinct origin in 1677,a silly
mistake made by one person who tried to justify the motions of the
Earth using a clock and two external references -
"... 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... " Flamsteed 1677
I do not fault Flamsteed unduly but a mistake is a mistake and it did
lead to the awful 20th century notions of time travel,warped space and
other novelistic trash that serves no pupose but to highlight that
something went badly wrong.
You have stumbled over
> something in your understanding, so you fail to see this. But you do
> not explain yourself clearly enough even for me to see where your
> mistake is - or, if you *are* the one who is right, to make me see my
> mistake.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 03:27:55
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
On Jun 9, 3:30 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Looking at the contemporary graphic in the Wikipedia article which
> > expresses how a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours in order
> > to justify the rotation to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is
> > shocking considering that the rotation of a location to noon has been
> > known to vary in length from antiquity.The idea of the 24 hours of
> > Monday elapsing into the 24 hours of Tuesday comes about via the noon
> > correction which equalises the variations but people are willingly
> > ignoring that such a correction is required.
>
> Yes, the diagram simplifies matters, so that they can be more clearly
> explained. It neglects the relatively small matter of the fact the
> Earth's orbit is an ellipse, in which the Earth moves with unequal
> speed, but makes that orbit a circle, so that the basic principle
> behind *one element* of the Earth's motions is brought out in
> isolation to be understood on its own.
>
You are on the wrong side of a very simple set of principles which
recognises that no two noon cycles are alike (hence the Equation of
Time) and even it is frightening,at least in some aspects,to see that
an idiotic and creationistlike understanding of the Earth's cycles be
so dominant the good news is that the original principles which create
the 24 hour day and its application to the daily cycle as a 24 hour/
360 degree equivalency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
I do not mind your creationistlike defence of justifying the Earth's
motions to a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value but my goodness,even
considering the sheer scale of the damage it does and in every
possible way it does the greatest disappointment is that nobody finds
the correct principles enjoyable,not just the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency but the Copernican reasoning from which it emerged.
> > The 'leap second' represents the worst part of an error that has
> > snowballed for the better part of 3 centuries for it represents the
> > unauthorised hitching of axial and orbital motion directly to the
> > horror of astrological geometry or rather the return of a star in 23
> > hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> Since the leap second has to do with an approximation to the 24 hour
> day, averaged out over a year, but now only slightly too short because
> it is out of date, what does it have to do with 23 hours, 56 minutes,
> 4 seconds?
>
I still cannot account for why people would willingly ignore how the
24 hour day is created via variations in the noon cycle or rather
adopt a dumb view which deterrmines that a location rotates to face
noon in 24 hours -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
Good kids who could easily grasp the treatise by Huygens are being
indoctrinated into this awful way of treating the axial and orbital
cycles and allowing for the fact that all here have be taught in the
astrological style of Flamsteed there is no excuse for intelligent
people to recognise that this 'sidereal' depiction of the Earth's
motion is shockingly creationlike in content and character -
Period Of Rotation
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. 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
When a website coming from Nasa determines that the Sun is overhead in
24 hours from one noon to the next in spite of the observation that no
two noon cycles are alike how can good people standf a chance of
appreciating the only technically correct set of principles leading to
the creation of the 24 hour day,how these 24 hour cycles elapse
seamlessly into each other and how it provides an equivalency between
clocks and terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle at 15 degrees
per hour making 24 hours/360 degrees.
> Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
> Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
> the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
> Atomic Time?
>
There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
by Flamsteed,specifically -
"... 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... " Flamsteed 1677
No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
no astronomical authority exists at present.
> I assure you, the mathematicians and astronomers have produced
> accurate formulae which let them calculate accurate ephemerides. What
> further justification is needed?
>
> John Savard
Mathematicians and astologers indeed !,a bunch of people who cannot
even appreciate the basic principle which creates the 24 hour day and
how it is applied to the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as a
24 hour/360 degree equivalency.It would be a lot easier to get the
magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 18:30:03
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Looking at the contemporary graphic in the Wikipedia article which
> expresses how a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours in order
> to justify the rotation to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is
> shocking considering that the rotation of a location to noon has been
> known to vary in length from antiquity.The idea of the 24 hours of
> Monday elapsing into the 24 hours of Tuesday comes about via the noon
> correction which equalises the variations but people are willingly
> ignoring that such a correction is required.
Yes, the diagram simplifies matters, so that they can be more clearly
explained. It neglects the relatively small matter of the fact the
Earth's orbit is an ellipse, in which the Earth moves with unequal
speed, but makes that orbit a circle, so that the basic principle
behind *one element* of the Earth's motions is brought out in
isolation to be understood on its own.
> The 'leap second' represents the worst part of an error that has
> snowballed for the better part of 3 centuries for it represents the
> unauthorised hitching of axial and orbital motion directly to the
> horror of astrological geometry or rather the return of a star in 23
> hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
Since the leap second has to do with an approximation to the 24 hour
day, averaged out over a year, but now only slightly too short because
it is out of date, what does it have to do with 23 hours, 56 minutes,
4 seconds?
Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
Atomic Time?
I assure you, the mathematicians and astronomers have produced
accurate formulae which let them calculate accurate ephemerides. What
further justification is needed?
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 18:20:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I am no obstacle to discussing the matter openly and will willingly
> withdraw in order to see the matter dealt with responsibly,and I mean
> that.
.
While there are many who would like to see you withdraw from this
newsgroup, because they find your posts annoying, honesty compels me
to tell you that withdrawing from the discussion of your concern at
this point will not further your cause...as yet, I am not aware of
anyone else who understands your objection to current orthodoxy who
might explain it better, more clearly, or more politely than you
could.
Even if you are modest about your own abilities to explain things, the
problem is, if no one else understands it, no one else can explain it.
I know it seems simple and obvious to you, but it's as clear as mud to
more people than just me.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 06:35:38
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
On Jun 8, 1:54 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> > Twenty-four hours per day seems to work for most of us. How many hours
> > would you like? If more, where would you get them? If fewer, how would
> > you dispose of the excess?
>
> He is quite happy with the minor excesses, and minor deficits, that
> cancel out over the course of a year, but which can add up to as much
> as about 15 minutes one way or the other at times.
>
> It's the other one, the 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, that he
> has a problem with.
>
> John Savard
I do not have a problem with your 'sidereal time' conception,the rest
of humanity does !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
Have a ball among yourselves trying to explain how a location rotates
to face noon every 24 hours in order to justify you beloved 23 hour 56
minute 04 second value.
When people are ready to return to the great Equation of Time system
which equalises variations in the Total length of the noon cycle to an
average 24 hour cycle , then and only then can astronomy resume,until
then people are wasting their time with pretensious nonsense such as
'leap second' corrections.
I am no obstacle to discussing the matter openly and will willingly
withdraw in order to see the matter dealt with responsibly,and I mean
that.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 06:26:03
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
On Jun 4, 11:27 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Thank God there was always room for brilliant men to create the
> > timekeeping systems which create the equable 24 hour day,create the
> > seperate calendar system with enough sense to know the difference.It
> > means that people will enjoy the careful set of astronomical
> > principles set out even though presently a rogue group have done the
> > unexplicable things in tying axial rotation directly to a celestial
> > sphere geometry -
>
> > "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... "
>
> > This IERS business is a foolish hoax on humanity born of that terrible
> > error by Flamsteed , designed more for pretensious purposes while
> > being a meaningless exercise in astrological geometry .People are
> > better served by becoming familiar with the equable 24 hour cycle and
> > how it comes from determination of the variations in the natural noon
> > cycle.
>
> > All the worthless doctorates here would be a lot less worthless if
> > they at least attempted to promote the proper principles based on a
> > 24 hour/360 degree correlation by acknowledging that it does not
> > represent the rotation of the Earth but rather a convenient
> > heliocentric adaption of the average 24 hour day transfered to the
> > axial cycle .
>
> > Where,in God's name, are all the astronomers who have the power to
> > overule this 'sidereal' nonsense ?.This is the actual creation of the
> > 24 hour day by brilliant men I am trying to discuss and not some
> > minor trivia yet nobody here takes it seriously.What is going on with
> > people ?.
>
> > On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> >>(While researching this, I came across the leap second list
> >>at [http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000],
> >>which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>
> >>In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
> >>the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>
> >>>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.
>
> >>An excellent scheme. Let me be the first to say that I approve.
>
> >>Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
> >>1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
> >>that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
> >>minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
> >>of the other minutes using leap seconds.
>
> >>Here is what I like about this scheme:
>
> >>The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
> >>result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
> >>nanosecond, etc. Those are much more commonly used than the
> >>second is in the areas of physics and engineering. In the area
> >>of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
> >>means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
> >>minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
>
> >>The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
> >>that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than most of
> >>the other minutes, hours or days. This is a thousand times closer
> >>than under the leap second scheme. Months and years would be ten
> >>times closer.
>
> >>References:
>
> >>The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
> >>(also touches on GPS)
>
> >>The Future of Leap Secondshttp://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
>
> >>Propagation of a leap secondhttp://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
>
> >>Leap Second Mailing List:http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
>
> >>--
> >>Guy Macon
> >><http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
> Twenty-four hours per day seems to work for most of us. How many hours
> would you like? If more, where would you get them? If fewer, how would
> you dispose of the excess?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The idea that the Earth's rotation is constant via the return of a
distant celestial object to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds and subsequently this pretensious fuss over 'leap second'
corrections represents the most visible signs of a serious problem.
To appreciate the original creation of the 24 hour cycle from
variations in the natural the noon cycle should be the most
enjoyable experience with the only thing to consider being the
variations in the Total length of the natural cycle.Unfortunately the
big institutions cannot even do this and mix up the total length of
the daily cycle with variations in seasonal daylight/darkness -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
When organisations like Nasa cannot explain the simple way in which
the 24 hour day is created let alone how it is applied to clocks,the
axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree
correlation then how is the rest of humanity supposed to appreciate
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
Looking at the contemporary graphic in the Wikipedia article which
expresses how a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours in order
to justify the rotation to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is
shocking considering that the rotation of a location to noon has been
known to vary in length from antiquity.The idea of the 24 hours of
Monday elapsing into the 24 hours of Tuesday comes about via the noon
correction which equalises the variations but people are willingly
ignoring that such a correction is required.
The 'leap second' represents the worst part of an error that has
snowballed for the better part of 3 centuries for it represents the
unauthorised hitching of axial and orbital motion directly to the
horror of astrological geometry or rather the return of a star in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.I am well aware why it is the dominant
conception but I still cannot account for why people are willingly
ignoring the correct core princples and especially when it is
expressed by Huygens in such a magnificent fashion -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
You probably do not believe that a creationist-type situation exists
but I assure you it does and the 'sidereal time' justification
represents that terrible situation.In the absence of any authority to
deal with the matter,it is up to each individual to become familiar
with how the 24 hour dya is created and how it provided humanity with
some of its greatest achievements such as the invention of accurate
clocks to determine geographical location on the planet.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 04:54:04
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Twenty-four hours per day seems to work for most of us. How many hours
> would you like? If more, where would you get them? If fewer, how would
> you dispose of the excess?
He is quite happy with the minor excesses, and minor deficits, that
cancel out over the course of a year, but which can add up to as much
as about 15 minutes one way or the other at times.
It's the other one, the 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, that he
has a problem with.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 21:21:22
From: Dr J R Stockton
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
In sci.astro.amateur message <FqOdnRa3eqCNWP_b4p2dnA@giganews.com >, Sun,
3 Jun 2007 13:30:32, Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com/.invalid > posted:
>
>(While researching this, I came across the leap second list
>at [ http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000 ],
>which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/leapsecs.htm#RLS >, while not
authoritative, has an indication :
197 198 199 200
22334455667788990011223344556677889900112233445566778899001122334455667
++.+.+.+.+.+.+.+..+.+.+...+....+...+.+..+.+.+..+..+..+.............+...
(Which happily just fits within the standard margin, until the next
announcement).
--
(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 Jun 2007 13:26:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
Thank God there was always room for brilliant men to create the
timekeeping systems which create the equable 24 hour day,create the
seperate calendar system with enough sense to know the difference.It
means that people will enjoy the careful set of astronomical
principles set out even though presently a rogue group have done the
unexplicable things in tying axial rotation directly to a celestial
sphere geometry -
"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... "
This IERS business is a foolish hoax on humanity born of that terrible
error by Flamsteed , designed more for pretensious purposes while
being a meaningless exercise in astrological geometry .People are
better served by becoming familiar with the equable 24 hour cycle and
how it comes from determination of the variations in the natural noon
cycle.
All the worthless doctorates here would be a lot less worthless if
they at least attempted to promote the proper principles based on a
24 hour/360 degree correlation by acknowledging that it does not
represent the rotation of the Earth but rather a convenient
heliocentric adaption of the average 24 hour day transfered to the
axial cycle .
Where,in God's name, are all the astronomers who have the power to
overule this 'sidereal' nonsense ?.This is the actual creation of the
24 hour day by brilliant men I am trying to discuss and not some
minor trivia yet nobody here takes it seriously.What is going on with
people ?.
On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> (While researching this, I came across the leap second list
> at [http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000],
> which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>
> In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
> the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> An excellent scheme. Let me be the first to say that I approve.
>
> Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
> 1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
> that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
> minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
> of the other minutes using leap seconds.
>
> Here is what I like about this scheme:
>
> The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
> result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
> nanosecond, etc. Those are much more commonly used than the
> second is in the areas of physics and engineering. In the area
> of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
> means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
> minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
>
> The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
> that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than most of
> the other minutes, hours or days. This is a thousand times closer
> than under the leap second scheme. Months and years would be ten
> times closer.
>
> References:
>
> The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
> (also touches on GPS)
>
> The Future of Leap Secondshttp://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
>
> Propagation of a leap secondhttp://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
>
> Leap Second Mailing List:http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 17:27:59
From: Richard B. Gilbert
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Thank God there was always room for brilliant men to create the
> timekeeping systems which create the equable 24 hour day,create the
> seperate calendar system with enough sense to know the difference.It
> means that people will enjoy the careful set of astronomical
> principles set out even though presently a rogue group have done the
> unexplicable things in tying axial rotation directly to a celestial
> sphere geometry -
>
> "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... "
>
> This IERS business is a foolish hoax on humanity born of that terrible
> error by Flamsteed , designed more for pretensious purposes while
> being a meaningless exercise in astrological geometry .People are
> better served by becoming familiar with the equable 24 hour cycle and
> how it comes from determination of the variations in the natural noon
> cycle.
>
> All the worthless doctorates here would be a lot less worthless if
> they at least attempted to promote the proper principles based on a
> 24 hour/360 degree correlation by acknowledging that it does not
> represent the rotation of the Earth but rather a convenient
> heliocentric adaption of the average 24 hour day transfered to the
> axial cycle .
>
> Where,in God's name, are all the astronomers who have the power to
> overule this 'sidereal' nonsense ?.This is the actual creation of the
> 24 hour day by brilliant men I am trying to discuss and not some
> minor trivia yet nobody here takes it seriously.What is going on with
> people ?.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>(While researching this, I came across the leap second list
>>at [http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000],
>>which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>>
>>In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
>>the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>An excellent scheme. Let me be the first to say that I approve.
>>
>>Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
>>1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
>>that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
>>minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
>>of the other minutes using leap seconds.
>>
>>Here is what I like about this scheme:
>>
>>The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
>>result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
>>nanosecond, etc. Those are much more commonly used than the
>>second is in the areas of physics and engineering. In the area
>>of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
>>means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
>>minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
>>
>>The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
>>that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than most of
>>the other minutes, hours or days. This is a thousand times closer
>>than under the leap second scheme. Months and years would be ten
>>times closer.
>>
>>References:
>>
>>The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
>>(also touches on GPS)
>>
>>The Future of Leap Secondshttp://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
>>
>>Propagation of a leap secondhttp://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
>>
>>Leap Second Mailing List:http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
>>
>>--
>>Guy Macon
>><http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>
>
Twenty-four hours per day seems to work for most of us. How many hours
would you like? If more, where would you get them? If fewer, how would
you dispose of the excess?
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 18:38:04
From: David L. Mills
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
Guy,
See the list at http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/UTC-TAI.history.
The current and past leapseconds files can be obtained via ftp from
time.nist.gov.
Dave
Judah keeps a current copy for ftp at time.nist.gov.Guy Macon wrote:
> (While researching this, I came across the leap second list
> at [ http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000 ],
> which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>
>
>
> In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
> the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> An excellent scheme. Let me be the first to say that I approve.
>
> Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
> 1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
> that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
> minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
> of the other minutes using leap seconds.
>
> Here is what I like about this scheme:
>
> The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
> result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
> nanosecond, etc. Those are much more commonly used than the
> second is in the areas of physics and engineering. In the area
> of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
> means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
> minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
>
> The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
> that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than most of
> the other minutes, hours or days. This is a thousand times closer
> than under the leap second scheme. Months and years would be ten
> times closer.
>
> References:
>
> The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:
> http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
> (also touches on GPS)
>
> The Future of Leap Seconds
> http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
>
> Propagation of a leap second
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
>
> Leap Second Mailing List:
> http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
>
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 23:28:07
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: The Leap Millisecond
|
David L. Mills wrote:
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> (While researching this, I came across the leap second list
>> at [ http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000 ],
>> which expired in 2004. Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>
>See the list at http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/UTC-TAI.history.
>
>The current and past leapseconds files can be obtained via ftp from
>time.nist.gov.
Thanks!
It is also availailable at the International Earth Rotation & Reference
Systems Service web site:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/UTC-TAI.history
It's interesting that from 1961 to 1964 the corrections had a resolution
of a millisecond, from 1964 to 1972 the resolution was to a tenth of a
second, and from 1972 to present the resolution has been one second.
---------------
UTC-TAI.history
---------------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAI AND UTC, UNTIL 27 DECEMBER 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits of validity(at 0h UTC) TAI - UTC
1961 Jan. 1 - 1961 Aug. 1 1.422 818 0s + (MJD - 37 300) x 0.001 296s
Aug. 1 - 1962 Jan. 1 1.372 818 0s + ""
1962 Jan. 1 - 1963 Nov. 1 1.845 858 0s + (MJD - 37 665) x 0.001 123 2s
1963 Nov. 1 - 1964 Jan. 1 1.945 858 0s + ""
1964 Jan. 1 - April 1 3.240 130 0s + (MJD - 38 761) x 0.001 296s
April 1 - Sept. 1 3.340 130 0s + ""
Sept. 1 - 1965 Jan. 1 3.440 130 0s + ""
1965 Jan. 1 - March 1 3.540 130 0s + ""
March 1 - Jul. 1 3.640 130 0s + ""
Jul. 1 - Sept. 1 3.740 130 0s + ""
Sept. 1 - 1966 Jan. 1 3.840 130 0s + ""
1966 Jan. 1 - 1968 Feb. 1 4.313 170 0s + (MJD - 39 126) x 0.002 592s
1968 Feb. 1 - 1972 Jan. 1 4.213 170 0s + ""
1972 Jan. 1 - Jul. 1 10s
Jul. 1 - 1973 Jan. 1 11s
1973 Jan. 1 - 1974 Jan. 1 12s
1974 Jan. 1 - 1975 Jan. 1 13s
1975 Jan. 1 - 1976 Jan. 1 14s
1976 Jan. 1 - 1977 Jan. 1 15s
1977 Jan. 1 - 1978 Jan. 1 16s
1978 Jan. 1 - 1979 Jan. 1 17s
1979 Jan. 1 - 1980 Jan. 1 18s
1980 Jan. 1 - 1981 Jul. 1 19s
1981 Jul. 1 - 1982 Jul. 1 20s
1982 Jul. 1 - 1983 Jul. 1 21s
1983 Jul. 1 - 1985 Jul. 1 22s
1985 Jul. 1 - 1988 Jan. 1 23s
1988 Jan. 1 - 1990 Jan. 1 24s
1990 Jan. 1 - 1991 Jan. 1 25s
1991 Jan. 1 - 1992 Jul. 1 26s
1992 Jul. 1.- 1993 Jul 1 27s
1993 Jul. 1 - 1994 Jul. 1 28s
1994 Jul. 1 - 1996 Jan. 1 29s
1996 Jan. 1 - 1997 Jul. 1 30s
1997 Jul. 1.- 1999 Jan. 1 31s
1999 Jan. 1.- 2006 Jan. 1 32s
2006 Jan. 1.- 33s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Latest version as of June 2007; good until next leap second)
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
