Re: "The Calendar" by David Ewing Duncan: Numerous Errors?

From: Philip Clarke (pclarke_at_mace.co.uk)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: 31 Jul 2004 16:29:03 -0700

Philip Clarke wrote:
 
> ................ Initially, I was struck by an internet article which
> described how the second was originally defined as 1 / 31,556,925.975
> of a year, and then after Scientists complained that this was not
> accurate enough, they re-defined the second as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of
> a year. By definition, a (mean solar?) year is 31,556,925.9747
> seconds in duratin. The question is, if 0.003 of a second made a
> difference to Scientists in 1967, then why was the "caesium frequency"
> of the current year only defined to the nearest 0.5 seconds? I have
> looked at formulae by Newcomb and others without success.

For future reference, I note that I have made a few errors in the
paragraph above. Apart from the spelling mistake, there are two
others which should be corrected;

1967 - The atomic second was defined in 1967. I should have said 1956
when the second was re-defined as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of a year,
having been previously defined in 1954 as 1 / 31,556,925.975 of a year
(the tropical year of 1900).

0.5 seconds - this should have read 0.05 seconds.

Regards,

Philip Clarke