Re: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and measurement.
- From: helbig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:44:52 +0000 (UTC)
In article <BEBD4018.7B49%rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, robert
bristow-johnson <rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> by 1983, they must have expected about 1 leap second each mean year (1 part
> per 31556952) why didn't they define the second to be that much longer (say
> 9,192,632,060 cycles instead of 9,192,631,770 cycles of this cesium
> radiation? they would still have to add or subtract leap seconds
> occasionally, but much less often than they did in the late 20th century.
> why not, when you're *defining* the standard of time (with a much better
> standard), make that initial definition agree as much as possible with the
> known astronomical unit, and then stick to it?
Backwards compatibility. For a time, the second was defined as a
certain fraction of the year 1900; the atomic-time definition probably
was set up to ba as close as possible to this.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and
- References:
- questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and measurement.
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and measurement.
- Prev by Date: Re: A question of discrete space-time.
- Next by Date: Stern-Gerlach Experiment
- Previous by thread: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and measurement.
- Next by thread: Re: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|