| |
Main
Date: 19 Jul 2006 13:18:10
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE REFERENCE
SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
Paris, 19 July 2006
Bulletin C 32
To authorities responsible
for the measurement and
distribution of time
INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006.
The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
International Atomic Time TAI is :
from 2006 January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December
or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed every
six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm that there
will be no time step at the next possible date.
Daniel GAMBIS
Director
Earth Orientation Center of IERS
Observatoire de Paris, France
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 09:56:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
orbit of the Earth.I am sure they would like to know how you fit the
Earth's orbital motion into a system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
of 366 days,the same reference these jokers use to fuss about a leap
second.
Humanity should not have to rely on one individual at a keyboard making
an effort to turn back from this 'leap second' junk insofar as the
pseudo-authorative 'iers' highlights the extreme obstacles facing
humanity in coming to understand how the Earth's axial and orbital
motions and orientations create global climate norms and why the
temperature signatures oscillating with the change in orbital
orientation can be discerned from temperature signatures from other
origins such as human activity or terrestial events -
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
All the pretension behind the leap second adjustment is fine as long
as at least some people recognise that it is little more than
self-congratulation using the wrong astronomical working principles for
axial rotation,should the iers care to review how the actual principles
which correlate clock time with the Earth's axial motion,right back to
its pre-Copernican correlation between naturally observed day and
equable 24 hour day then nobody will be happier than I.
Sam Wormley wrote:
> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
>
> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE REFERENCE
>
>
> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
>
> Paris, 19 July 2006
>
>
> Bulletin C 32
>
> To authorities responsible
> for the measurement and
> distribution of time
>
>
>
> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
>
>
> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006.
> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
> International Atomic Time TAI is :
>
> from 2006 January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
>
> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December
> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed every
> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm that there
> will be no time step at the next possible date.
>
>
> Daniel GAMBIS
> Director
> Earth Orientation Center of IERS
> Observatoire de Paris, France
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 20:06:41
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Fun in Noomerville
|
oriel36 wrote:
> All the pretension behind the leap second adjustment is fine as long
> as at least some people recognise that it is little more than
> self-congratulation using the wrong astronomical working principles for
> axial rotation,should the iers care to review how the actual principles
> which correlate clock time with the Earth's axial motion,right back to
> its pre-Copernican correlation between naturally observed day and
> equable 24 hour day then nobody will be happier than I.
But actually, we should adopt a better standard:<)
Days:
A Normal day consists of 1441 minutes. A Leap Day only
has 1440 minutes. Whether the longer day is added as
a leap second every twentyfour or a leap minute at the
end is beyond the scope of this standard.
Cycles:
There are nineteen days in a cycle, which, for lack of
nice names, we'll call M9,...,0,...P9. In a normal
cycle all days except day "0" are normal. In a leap
cycle, all days are normal.
Scores (a "score" of years, that is):
There are 365 cycles in a score -- making a total of
nineteen years. Each of those years has a bit over
19 cycles. The largest 19 of those cycles, for want of
a better name, we'll call M9,...,0,...,P9 -- we'll figure
out a special name for the other one later -- maybe
something like "left-overs". In a normal score, year
"0" has only two leap cycles, M4 and P4; all other years
have three leap cycles, M6, 0 and P6. In a leap score,
all years have all three leap cycles.
Centuries:
There are five scores in a century, M2,M1,0,P1 and P2.
In a normal century, scores M1 and P1 are leap scores.
In a leap century, only score 0 is a leap score.
Note: A century is about 1175 synodic months, 1270
sidereal months, and 34698 leap days.
Millennia:
Naturally, there are eleven centuries in a millenium,
M5,...,0,...P5. The odd numbered centuries are normal
centuries; the even numbered centuries are leap centuries.
Now, let that settle it for now... call me in 70000 years or
so and we'll discuss adjustments.
Now, watch some [expletive deleted] numerologist see this and
take it where it shouldn't be.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 13:32:40
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
> orbit of the Earth.
Because it's easier than adding a leap minute
every day except every 72nd.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 14:00:41
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
>> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
>> orbit of the Earth.
>
> Because it's easier than adding a leap minute
> every day except every 72nd.
Oops... Make that every 73rd.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in
news:1153328172.167564.6730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
> orbit of the Earth.
Because Pope Gregory decreed it, heretic. Expect the Spanish inquisition any
time soon ;-).
Klazmon.
<SNIP >
|
| |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 22:51:15
From: Dr John Stockton
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
JRS: In article <UoqdnQP8SM4i8SPZnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@rcn.net >, dated Wed,
19 Jul 2006 13:32:40 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Richard
F.L.R.Snashall <rflrs@notnotrcn.com > posted :
>oriel36 wrote:
>> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
>> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
>> orbit of the Earth.
>
>Because it's easier than adding a leap minute
>every day except every 72nd.
I don't think that oriel36 understands that Leap Years deal with the
(substantially constant) non-integer part of the ratio between the
Earth's orbital and rotational periods, while Leap Seconds deal with the
(slightly-varying) discrepancy between 86400 seconds SI and the period
of the Earth's rotation with respect to the Sun's position.
There is (it is said) a historical justification for the use of the word
"Leap" in respect of Leap Years; it is probably a pity that the same
word was used for an entirely different adjustment involving seconds.
A Leap Minute every 73 days is one part in 1440*73 ~ 1 in 1E5
Leap Years are 0.2425 parts in 365.2425 ~ 1 in 1500
A Leap Second every year would be one part in about 31E6
So I don't see why you want a Leap Minute every 73 days.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
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: 20 Jul 2006 23:35:12
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:51:15 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>I don't think that oriel36 understands that Leap Years deal with the
>(substantially constant) non-integer part of the ratio between the
>Earth's orbital and rotational periods...
As near as I can tell, oriel36 considers anything non-integral in the
Earth's orbital or rotational periods to be nothing but fabrications by
modern astronomers.
A more accurate statement would be "I don't think that oriel36
understands."
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 03:52:16
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Fun in Noomerville
|
Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > All the pretension behind the leap second adjustment is fine as long
> > as at least some people recognise that it is little more than
> > self-congratulation using the wrong astronomical working principles for
> > axial rotation,should the iers care to review how the actual principles
> > which correlate clock time with the Earth's axial motion,right back to
> > its pre-Copernican correlation between naturally observed day and
> > equable 24 hour day then nobody will be happier than I.
>
> But actually, we should adopt a better standard:<)
>
> Days:
>
> A Normal day consists of 1441 minutes.
1441 minutes indeed !.
For all the judgements cast in this direction it still boils down to
one single correlation that does not change,axial rotation at 15
degrees per hour and the pre-Copernican principles which keep it that
way.
I make the effort to raise the standard and not be drawn down into
yours,the standard being set by my astronomical ancestors in creating
the enormous timekeeping schemes and their counterparts who created the
great celestial geometries based on orbital motion.
Your kind exists in neither,drawing people down to the page,the theory
and the opinion with one no better or worst than the next.I am the one
participant here is entirely comfortable with this era for I can
promote Copernican heliocentricity using time lapse footage that was
unavailible a few decades ago -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/05.motion_planets/jupiter_saturn_retro.gif
Like looking out the window from an orbitally moving Earth as it
overtakes the slower planets in our and their common motion around the
Sun,the intuitive intelligence of the astronomer recognises how the
heliocentric orbital motion is seen direct from Earth.
Those who have no intutive intelligence believe that heliocentric
motion of the planets can only be seen directly from the Sun.These are
the same people who link the Earth's rotation directly to the
calendrically driven celestial sphere system based on 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days and talk of stupid leap second correction
in terms of changing axial speeds.
A Leap Day only
> has 1440 minutes. Whether the longer day is added as
> a leap second every twentyfour or a leap minute at the
> end is beyond the scope of this standard.
>
> Cycles:
>
> There are nineteen days in a cycle, which, for lack of
> nice names, we'll call M9,...,0,...P9. In a normal
> cycle all days except day "0" are normal. In a leap
> cycle, all days are normal.
>
> Scores (a "score" of years, that is):
>
> There are 365 cycles in a score -- making a total of
> nineteen years. Each of those years has a bit over
> 19 cycles. The largest 19 of those cycles, for want of
> a better name, we'll call M9,...,0,...,P9 -- we'll figure
> out a special name for the other one later -- maybe
> something like "left-overs". In a normal score, year
> "0" has only two leap cycles, M4 and P4; all other years
> have three leap cycles, M6, 0 and P6. In a leap score,
> all years have all three leap cycles.
>
> Centuries:
>
> There are five scores in a century, M2,M1,0,P1 and P2.
> In a normal century, scores M1 and P1 are leap scores.
> In a leap century, only score 0 is a leap score.
>
> Note: A century is about 1175 synodic months, 1270
> sidereal months, and 34698 leap days.
>
> Millennia:
>
> Naturally, there are eleven centuries in a millenium,
> M5,...,0,...P5. The odd numbered centuries are normal
> centuries; the even numbered centuries are leap centuries.
>
> Now, let that settle it for now... call me in 70000 years or
> so and we'll discuss adjustments.
>
>
> Now, watch some [expletive deleted] numerologist see this and
> take it where it shouldn't be.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 22:13:05
From: jtaylor
Subject: Re: Fun in Noomerville
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1153479136.522069.25950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> >
> > > All the pretension behind the leap second adjustment is fine as long
> > > as at least some people recognise that it is little more than
> > > self-congratulation using the wrong astronomical working principles
for
> > > axial rotation,should the iers care to review how the actual
principles
> > > which correlate clock time with the Earth's axial motion,right back to
> > > its pre-Copernican correlation between naturally observed day and
> > > equable 24 hour day then nobody will be happier than I.
> >
> > But actually, we should adopt a better standard:<)
> >
> > Days:
> >
> > A Normal day consists of 1441 minutes.
>
>
> 1441 minutes indeed !.
>
> For all the judgements cast in this direction it still boils down to
> one single correlation that does not change,axial rotation at 15
> degrees
Relative to what?
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 03:34:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
It is fortunate for you that the resolution for orbital geometry,at
least at the level of the Keplerian refinement,is a very intricate
affair.The tangled geometries based on orbital motion along the Earth's
orbital circumference can be transfered to orbital distances between
the Earth and the Sun however the Newtonian maneuver to create the mean
Sun/Earth distances using the stellar background is an extreme act of
violence against the Keplerian orbital geometries .
Best understood in a setting where it is seen that the Earth overtakes
the slower moving outer planets generated the inequalities in motion
that was known even to the Ptolemaic astronomers (Equant).I can present
glimpses of the Keplerian reasoning based on orbital comparisons
between the Earth and Mars but there is not a trace that a single
person can match what Kepler is saying and his Panis Quadragesimalis
representation with the convenience of modern time lapse footage
demonstarting orbital motion in isolation -
http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf
On page 84 he relates the orbital comparisons,in terms of plotted data
(retrogrades) and in terms of heliocentric orbital comparisons for the
respective annual orbits ,with time lapse footage it becomes easy to
determine how Mars has an orbital period of 687 days using the Earth's
orbital period as a guide*.
Great men would find the Copernican arguments and the Keplerian
refinements to be gorgeous in content and character and nothing like
the convoluted mess filtered through a mathematician's idea of
astronomy.The resolution for heliocentricity based on the Earth orbital
motion overtaking the slower moving outer planets is the flip side of
the other great achievement,the isolation of axial rotation to
terrestial longitudes at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.
.
* Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER
Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which
is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.
Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun."
Johannes Kepler
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:51:15 +0100, Dr John Stockton
> <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I don't think that oriel36 understands that Leap Years deal with the
> >(substantially constant) non-integer part of the ratio between the
> >Earth's orbital and rotational periods...
>
> As near as I can tell, oriel36 considers anything non-integral in the
> Earth's orbital or rotational periods to be nothing but fabrications by
> modern astronomers.
>
> A more accurate statement would be "I don't think that oriel36
> understands."
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 03:06:36
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> JRS: In article <UoqdnQP8SM4i8SPZnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@rcn.net>, dated Wed,
> 19 Jul 2006 13:32:40 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Richard
> F.L.R.Snashall <rflrs@notnotrcn.com> posted :
> >oriel36 wrote:
> >> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
> >> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
> >> orbit of the Earth.
> >
> >Because it's easier than adding a leap minute
> >every day except every 72nd.
>
>
> I don't think that oriel36 understands that Leap Years deal with the
> (substantially constant) non-integer part of the ratio between the
> Earth's orbital and rotational periods, while Leap Seconds deal with the
> (slightly-varying) discrepancy between 86400 seconds SI and the period
> of the Earth's rotation with respect to the Sun's position.
>
My turn.
A location on Earth does not rotate to face the Sun (noon) every 24
hours/86 400 seconds hence the Equation of Time correction.This
pre-Copernican correction based on the return of the Sun to noon
effectively equalises out the natural variations and facilitates the
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.
The pre-Copernican astronomers who constructed the system of equable 24
hour days which was extended on to the complimentary calendrical system
based on the annual orbit calculated by using those equable 24 hour
days as 365.25 days,the point being that to construct a calendrical
system with a leap day correction every 4th year,the equable 24 hour
day had to be constructed first.The intutitive and intellectual
intelligence required to discern this crucial point affects all ahead
of it and especially for the working principles for axial rotation in
isolation for the clock system and orbital motion in isolation for
Copernican heliocentricity.
You,on the other hand, determine that axial rotation can be discerned
as an independent motion through the return of a star to a terrestial
meridian in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and any variation in the return
constitutes a variation in the Earth's axial rotational speed.This is
dangerously incorrect and perhaps highlights the obstacles felt in
other areas such as global climate studies where an accurate
representation of the Earth's axial and orbital motions and
orientations are required.
So,far from telling me what I do or do not understand,I lay down
exactly why correcting this horrible situation is required,not just the
obstacles placed in terms of global climate studies with the sheer
counter-productive nature of the erroneous sideral view of which leap
corrections ahighlight the issue.
Most people know the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 24 hours
without knowing the principles behind the Equation of Time correction
which keeps it that way however those who maintain the value of 23
hours 56 min and justify it astronomically veer towards that ignorance
which is destructive and counter-productive to humanity.
It is not a matter of being correct,it is a matter of adopting the
correct working principles which ceased after the 17th century
empirical mutations give rise to theortical junk clogging the great
astronomical insights of Copernicus and Kepler.It is a fight for
geometry in motion as much as anything else and with contemporary
technological tools such as time lapse footage,it becomes easier to
surmount the linguistic tinsel concealing humanity's great astronomical
achievements.
I would love to show you how the pre-Copernican equable 24 day
principles tranfer to its heliocentric adaption at a rate of 15 degrees
per hour but the explanation is just appearing for the first time and
capable people involved in graphic design are required to build this
enormous and exciting structure just as our ancestors did ,stretching
from remote antiquity.
Here is the best you can do -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Do you wish a child to tell you that the Earth covers a greater
orbital distance along its obital circumference the further it is from
the Sun under such a scheme ?.That is the price of your 23 hours 56 min
04 sec justification.
> There is (it is said) a historical justification for the use of the word
> "Leap" in respect of Leap Years; it is probably a pity that the same
> word was used for an entirely different adjustment involving seconds.
>
> A Leap Minute every 73 days is one part in 1440*73 ~ 1 in 1E5
> Leap Years are 0.2425 parts in 365.2425 ~ 1 in 1500
> A Leap Second every year would be one part in about 31E6
>
> So I don't see why you want a Leap Minute every 73 days.
>
> --
> =A9 John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 =
MIME. =A9
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acr=
onyms
> PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00inde=
x=2Ehtm
> Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm=
etc.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 12:18:26
From: Dr John Stockton
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
JRS: In article <Xns9806B9A3FA4E6Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6 >,
dated Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur,
Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt > posted :
>Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 +1200
>X-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz
>> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4 years
>> and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the annual
>> orbit of the Earth.
>
>Because Pope Gregory decreed it, heretic. Expect the Spanish inquisition any
>time soon ;-).
You are clearly posting from New Zealand.
Pope Gregory explicitly limited the effects of his Bull to regions under
Church authority - that did not effectively include Britain (then
Protestant) or New Zealand (then Maori, and not known of in the
Vatican).
King George II with his Parliament decreed the present Calendar; but the
Act explicitly states the regions to which it applies, and does not
include you. You and the Aussies should consider what legal basis your
present Calendar actually has.
But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Years;
they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
later who got the implementation corrected.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
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: 21 Jul 2006 14:09:39
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Years;
> they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
> Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
> Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
> quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
> later who got the implementation corrected.
>
If we really think we know the length of a year, shouldn't the rule
be "365 days except every fourth, except every twenty-fifth, except
every fourth, except every eighth, except every hundred forty fourth"?
All I've ever were the first three exceptions.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 11:21:08
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> If we really think we know the length of a year, shouldn't the rule
> be "365 days except every fourth, except every twenty-fifth, except
> every fourth, except every eighth, except every hundred forty fourth"?
I make that last one "except every twenty-seventh [or possibly
twenty-eighth]." :)
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 11:00:33
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
Dr John Stockton <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote in
news:0TKB4QGCgLwEFwdK@merlyn.demon.co.uk:
> JRS: In article <Xns9806B9A3FA4E6Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>,
> dated Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur,
> Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> posted :
>
>>Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 +1200
>
>>X-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz
>
>>> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4
>>> years and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the
>>> annual orbit of the Earth.
>>
>>Because Pope Gregory decreed it, heretic. Expect the Spanish inquisition
>>any time soon ;-).
>
> You are clearly posting from New Zealand.
>
> Pope Gregory explicitly limited the effects of his Bull to regions under
> Church authority - that did not effectively include Britain (then
> Protestant) or New Zealand (then Maori, and not known of in the
> Vatican).
>
> King George II with his Parliament decreed the present Calendar; but the
> Act explicitly states the regions to which it applies, and does not
> include you. You and the Aussies should consider what legal basis your
> present Calendar actually has.
That's interesting. I'll find out whether or not the local pariliament ever
actually passed an act to adopt the Gregorian calendar.
>
> But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Years;
> they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
> Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
> Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
> quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
> later who got the implementation corrected.
>
I am well aware of that. My post was a joke at Oriel's expense.
Klazmon.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:24:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> > If we really think we know the length of a year, shouldn't the rule
> > be "365 days except every fourth, except every twenty-fifth, except
> > every fourth, except every eighth, except every hundred forty fourth"?
>
> I make that last one "except every twenty-seventh [or possibly
> twenty-eighth]." :)
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Considering that the calendar system is an extension of the Equation of
Time system which generates the equable 24 hour day,to see careless and
brute minds circle the exquisite system inherited from antiquity is
almost unbearable.
Tell me how you justify the calendar system astronomically and I will
show you creeps who never understood Copernican heliocentricity or the
24 hour clock system in sync with axial rotation at terrestial
longitudes at 15 degrees per hour.
All anyone has to do is stick close to the original Equation of Time
principles which creates the human devised principles of the equable 24
hour day from natural noon and then recognise how these principles were
adapted to axial rotation when the heliocentric system appeared.
As for your junk,well there is enough of it around.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 13:02:18
From: Dr John Stockton
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
JRS: In article <SpidndtFxprwhVzZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@rcn.net >, dated Fri,
21 Jul 2006 14:09:39 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Richard
F.L.R.Snashall <rflrs@notnotrcn.com > posted :
>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>> But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Years;
>> they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
>> Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
>> Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
>> quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
>> later who got the implementation corrected.
>>
>If we really think we know the length of a year, shouldn't the rule
>be "365 days except every fourth, except every twenty-fifth, except
>every fourth, except every eighth, except every hundred forty fourth"?
>All I've ever were the first three exceptions.
We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
or six decimal places of mean solar days.
The first part of your rule gives the Julian Calendar, and the first
three parts give the Gregorian; those were good estimates for their
time.
The Mean Solar Year is at present 365.24219 days, AIUI, which is 0.00031
days less than the Gregorian estimate, giving a discrepancy of one day
per 3225 years, for which either 3200 or 4000 years could be chosen as a
practical approximation. No such choice has been made by any competent
administrating authority (although (a) the Greek Orthodox have rendered
it inappropriate by modifying Gregory's third rule, (b) about a century
ago Encyclopaedia Britannica thought otherwise).
One can see that with Caesar's rule lengthening the year, Gregory's
additional rules first shortening and lengthening the year, dropping a
day every 3200 years would improve the approximation to the present
year-length.
The uncertainty in the present length of the year renders any attempt to
determine a further (to 3200 years) correction interval ludicrous; even
the sign of the next correction (if 3200 were chosen) appears in doubt.
But, of course, it is not the present length of the year which matters;
the rate of leap days needed in an interval depends on the average
length of the year (in solar days) in that interval. Variation of the
Earth's orbital period will be unimportant on this time scale. But
variation of the Earth's rate of rotation will be important; and that
rate is affected both by tidal dissipation and by climate change
(altering out moment of inertia).
There is no practical need to change the Gregorian Rule at the present
time; but, for the present year-length it would be better to retain the
Julian Rule, drop the additional Gregorian ones, and instead omit
February 29th in each year divisible by 128, with first effect in 2048.
Also, by omitting Leap Years until that date, ISTM that the Solstices
and Equinoxes might be brought, on average, to the divisions of the
years into Quarters.
In either case, a change in the rules for the Date of Easter Sunday
would be warranted.
See via sig below.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
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: 22 Jul 2006 16:24:24
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
> or six decimal places of mean solar days.
If true, I suppose it would be futile to ask the Wiki authors to give
some kind of indication when they say 365.27218967, anyway.
> There is no practical need to change the Gregorian Rule at the present
> time; but, for the present year-length it would be better to retain the
> Julian Rule, drop the additional Gregorian ones, and instead omit
> February 29th in each year divisible by 128, with first effect in 2048.
Accurate. But I still like the 95 year centuries (23 leap years,
symmetrically placed) if only due to the apparent connectedness of the
lunar cycles.
> See via sig below.
BTW. Thank you for the actual response.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 04:48:00
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:24:24 -0400, "Richard F.L.R.Snashall"
<rflrs@notnotrcn.com > wrote:
>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>
>> We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
>> or six decimal places of mean solar days.
>
>If true, I suppose it would be futile to ask the Wiki authors to give
>some kind of indication when they say 365.27218967, anyway.
I think the solar year is measured to an accuracy of about 30 mS, which
puts the uncertainty in about the seventh decimal place. So giving a
derived value to eight places isn't particularly excessive.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 03:08:24
From: Odysseus
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
In article <vvidnYXj2dHnFF_ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@rcn.net >,
"Richard F.L.R.Snashall" <rflrs@notnotrcn.com > wrote:
> Dr John Stockton wrote:
>
> > We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
> > or six decimal places of mean solar days.
>
> If true, I suppose it would be futile to ask the Wiki authors to give
> some kind of indication when they say 365.27218967, anyway.
Where did you find that figure? I don't see it in the list at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#Summary_of_various_kinds_of_year >.
--
Odysseus
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 00:19:57
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Odysseus wrote:
> In article <vvidnYXj2dHnFF_ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@rcn.net>,
> "Richard F.L.R.Snashall" <rflrs@notnotrcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>
>>> We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
>>> or six decimal places of mean solar days.
>> If true, I suppose it would be futile to ask the Wiki authors to give
>> some kind of indication when they say 365.27218967, anyway.
>
> Where did you find that figure? I don't see it in the list at
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#Summary_of_various_kinds_of_year>.
>
typo in my note: 365.24218967 length of Tropical Year in
the "Year" article
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 00:38:34
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006.
I'm very disappointed. I'll be partying on a small island in Chile that
evening, and would have treasured that extra second ;)
Phil
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 02:14:34
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>
>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006.
>
>
> I'm very disappointed. I'll be partying on a small island in Chile that
> evening, and would have treasured that extra second ;)
>
> Phil
Phil, while in Chile, will you get to visit one of the observatories
up in the mountains?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 03:21:28
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006.
>>
>>
>> I'm very disappointed. I'll be partying on a small island in Chile
>> that evening, and would have treasured that extra second ;)
>>
>> Phil
>
> Phil, while in Chile, will you get to visit one of the observatories
> up in the mountains?
No .. primarily a hiking/trekking trip and we will be further south in
the lake district (roughly near Puerto Montt). I believe the main
observatories are north of Santiago, near the Atacama Desert.
Lousy time of year for astronomy anyway .. short nights and long, tiring
days. I will take my Canon 12x36 IS II binos, though.
Murphy's law: Last trip was to Alaska .. and it never did get dark.
Phil
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 21:38:38
From: Dr John Stockton
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
JRS: In article <4lv5c2ld941aolj2nk4dfl2obunenihq74@4ax.com >, dated
Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:48:00 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Chris
L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > posted :
>I think the solar year is measured to an accuracy of about 30 mS, which
>puts the uncertainty in about the seventh decimal place. So giving a
>derived value to eight places isn't particularly excessive.
How does one value it in milli-Siemens, which is what mS abbreviates ?
--
© 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: 23 Jul 2006 23:38:15
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:38:38 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>How does one value it in milli-Siemens, which is what mS abbreviates ?
Sorry, old habit going back to my days in electronics (where most texts
still use "S" for seconds).
BTW, as long as we are being pedantic, that would be millisiemens, not
milli-Siemens or milli Siemens (the base units are siemens).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 12:11:57
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
Explain to these guys where you get the equable 24 hour days to
determine the annual orbit and explain it astronomically.
Thankfully the great astronomical systems ,including the recent
heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,was
built by a different type of person than you and your colleagues.
The two step scheme which creates the equable 24 hour day from the
return of the Sun to noon and the astronomical correction applied to
that event and its transfer to the principle of independent axial
rotation should be one of the most loved astronomical principles of
all.
There is no external reference for axial rotation at 15 degrees per
hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total,that is the exquisite jewel in
the two step process which gives us the insight in how the standard
pace of a clock keeps in sync with axial rotation.
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> JRS: In article <SpidndtFxprwhVzZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@rcn.net>, dated Fri,
> 21 Jul 2006 14:09:39 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Richard
> F.L.R.Snashall <rflrs@notnotrcn.com> posted :
> >Dr John Stockton wrote:
>
> >> But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Year=
s;
> >> they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
> >> Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
> >> Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
> >> quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
> >> later who got the implementation corrected.
> >>
> >If we really think we know the length of a year, shouldn't the rule
> >be "365 days except every fourth, except every twenty-fifth, except
> >every fourth, except every eighth, except every hundred forty fourth"?
> >All I've ever were the first three exceptions.
>
>
> We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
> or six decimal places of mean solar days.
>
> The first part of your rule gives the Julian Calendar, and the first
> three parts give the Gregorian; those were good estimates for their
> time.
>
> The Mean Solar Year is at present 365.24219 days, AIUI, which is 0.00031
> days less than the Gregorian estimate, giving a discrepancy of one day
> per 3225 years, for which either 3200 or 4000 years could be chosen as a
> practical approximation. No such choice has been made by any competent
> administrating authority (although (a) the Greek Orthodox have rendered
> it inappropriate by modifying Gregory's third rule, (b) about a century
> ago Encyclopaedia Britannica thought otherwise).
>
> One can see that with Caesar's rule lengthening the year, Gregory's
> additional rules first shortening and lengthening the year, dropping a
> day every 3200 years would improve the approximation to the present
> year-length.
>
> The uncertainty in the present length of the year renders any attempt to
> determine a further (to 3200 years) correction interval ludicrous; even
> the sign of the next correction (if 3200 were chosen) appears in doubt.
>
> But, of course, it is not the present length of the year which matters;
> the rate of leap days needed in an interval depends on the average
> length of the year (in solar days) in that interval. Variation of the
> Earth's orbital period will be unimportant on this time scale. But
> variation of the Earth's rate of rotation will be important; and that
> rate is affected both by tidal dissipation and by climate change
> (altering out moment of inertia).
>
> There is no practical need to change the Gregorian Rule at the present
> time; but, for the present year-length it would be better to retain the
> Julian Rule, drop the additional Gregorian ones, and instead omit
> February 29th in each year divisible by 128, with first effect in 2048.
>
> Also, by omitting Leap Years until that date, ISTM that the Solstices
> and Equinoxes might be brought, on average, to the divisions of the
> years into Quarters.
>
> In either case, a change in the rules for the Date of Easter Sunday
> would be warranted.
>
> See via sig below.
>
> --
> =A9 John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 =
MIME. =A9
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acr=
onyms
> PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00inde=
x=2Ehtm
> Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm=
etc.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 14:22:21
From: Dr John Stockton
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
JRS: In article <vvidnYXj2dHnFF_ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@rcn.net >, dated Sat,
22 Jul 2006 16:24:24 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Richard
F.L.R.Snashall <rflrs@notnotrcn.com > posted :
>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>
>> We know the length of a year, suitably defined, to something like five
>> or six decimal places of mean solar days.
>
>If true, I suppose it would be futile to ask the Wiki authors to give
>some kind of indication when they say 365.27218967, anyway.
That's nowhere near 365.2425, which is the Gregorian figure.
And 365.27218967 has 11 figures. A Leap Second per year would be about
1 in 31,500,000, which has 8 figures. The constancy of the rate of leap
seconds is certainly worse than 99.9%, so although Wiki's apparent
accuracy might be justifiable for the length of a given past year, or
the average over a given interval, it is not applicable to defining a
calendar for the future (given that variation in days/year is due
predominantly to variation in day-length not year-length).
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 03:22:23
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2006
|
The whole point of the exercise is recognising that the equable day
controls every other cycle and the 24 hour day has a direct correlation
with the pace of axial rotation.
I am sure the 11th decimal place values look impressive to you but you
are off by 3 minutes 56 seconds per day in you value for axial rotation
through 360 degrees.
John here is just an extreme case of the pretensiousness which is just
plain silly to a real astronomer rather than anything offensive.Do you
wish to hear how the two step process which links the 24 hour day to
independent axial rotation came about or do you want to listen to a
pretensious freak like John who has no feel for the motions involved in
assigning values for the cycles and especially the most fundamental
cycle of all - axial rotation.
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
> Dr John Stockton <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:0TKB4QGCgLwEFwdK@merlyn.demon.co.uk:
>
> > JRS: In article <Xns9806B9A3FA4E6Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>,
> > dated Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur,
> > Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> posted :
> >
> >>Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:14:57 +1200
> >
> >>X-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz
> >
> >>> Tell people why a 86 400 leap second correction is needed every 4
> >>> years and what happens to that quarter day each year in respect to the
> >>> annual orbit of the Earth.
> >>
> >>Because Pope Gregory decreed it, heretic. Expect the Spanish inquisition
> >>any time soon ;-).
> >
> > You are clearly posting from New Zealand.
> >
> > Pope Gregory explicitly limited the effects of his Bull to regions under
> > Church authority - that did not effectively include Britain (then
> > Protestant) or New Zealand (then Maori, and not known of in the
> > Vatican).
> >
> > King George II with his Parliament decreed the present Calendar; but the
> > Act explicitly states the regions to which it applies, and does not
> > include you. You and the Aussies should consider what legal basis your
> > present Calendar actually has.
>
> That's interesting. I'll find out whether or not the local pariliament ever
> actually passed an act to adopt the Gregorian calendar.
>
> >
> > But, of course, neither Pope nor King introduced quadrennial Leap Years;
> > they introduced the omission of a specified 3% of what would have been
> > Leap Years under the rules then extant. It was G Julius Caesar,
> > Imperator and future assassinee, who introduced (in principle)
> > quadrennial Leap Years; and one of his successors a generation or so
> > later who got the implementation corrected.
> >
>
> I am well aware of that. My post was a joke at Oriel's expense.
>
> Klazmon.
|
|
