"oriel36" wrote in message
...

What you have is a very unstable situation -

"On July 5, 2005, the Head of the Earth Orientation Center of the IERS
sent a notice to IERS Bulletins C and D subscribers, soliciting
comments on a U.S. proposal before the ITU-R Study Group 7's WP7-A to
eliminate leap seconds from the UTC broadcast standard before 2008.
(The ITU-R is responsible for the definition of UTC.) The Wall Street
Journal noted that the proposal was considered by a U.S. official to
be a "private matter internal to the ITU", as of July 2005.[14] It was
expected to be considered in November 2005, but the discussion has
since been postponed.[15] Under the proposal, leap seconds would be
technically replaced by leap hours as an attempt to satisfy the legal
requirements of several ITU-R member nations that civil time be
astronomically tied to the Sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

The core referencing system for an additional day/rotation after 4
consecutive 365 day periods relied on two stars and the proportion of
rotations to annual cycles based on the daily appearance of the
central Sun in tandem with the annual appearance of Sirius from behind
the glare of our central star.

It remains that one 24 hour AM/PM cycle keeps in step with the
appearance of the Sun and that any star along the ecliptic equator
will not appear consistently after 4 periods of 365 days/rotations but
will appear as a line of sight observation the next day.Simply
put,there is no justification for a leap second based on the pathetic
Late 17th century conclusion based on right ascension so the
objections of the satellite community to the 'leap second' are
unfounded by virtue that these corrections were always an exercise in
empirical pretense with no justification whatsoever.

When are people going to get this into their heads ? - planetary
dynamics and their terrestrial effects rely on the core narrative that
does not include leap seconds or leap hours,it requires a completely
focused treatment based on why daily and orbital motions are
completely separate yet for convenience can be formatted in terms of 3
years of 365 days/rotations and 1 year of 366 days/rotations.

This is not for the childish,it doesn't beg attention from science
fiction or those who love cartoons and it certainly is no longer for
the 'solar vs sidereal' junkies who now have been bypassed by a new
story which uses the year 1820 as a launchpad for an even worse
conception between the 24 hour day and rotation.


=============================================
Shall we keep billions of clocks in time with the year or not?
A) Yes
B) No.

If B), what is your leap second proposal, you childish, ignorant, pig-headed
and very stupid bullying thug?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.