|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: Phil Wheeler wrote in news:vvgTc.3706$aB1.2170 @twister.socal.rr.com: At the risk of using long words which will challenge your intellect: UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time", or "Universal Time, Coordinated". It is UTC instead of UCT because the abbreviation is based on the initials in French, not English. Ummm... don't you mean "instead of CUT?" g Long discussion of that at the same web site g |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:26:03 GMT, Phil Wheeler wrote: UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time", or "Universal Time, Coordinated". It is UTC instead of UCT because the abbreviation is based on the initials in French, not English. Actually, it isn't. In French it would be TUC. In English, it would be CUT. The abbreviation was chosen (politically) as a compromise, and is not a true abbreviation in any language. See http://www.aldridge.com/utc.html For more of this -- if it matters. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote:
"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote in message ... Mike Fitterman wrote: This really is a must. For folks that live in the US "CST" can mean more than one thing. It can be confusing as hell for people who live outside the US to figure out what our timezones map to. I subscribe to that. I live in Norway and I don't know what CST represents, and most people I know don't know that either. One really cannot expect all other people to look up all other time zone designations around the world (at least not if you expect them to get it right). I use UT all the time, and also avoid the troublesome summertime ("daylight saving time") issues. That's fine if you live within a couple of hours of UT, but you have to admit it sounds a little silly (actually a lot silly) in an observing report to say, "I started observing at 9am but the best objects were not visible until 11 am when the sky was really dark." But you don't say that. There is no AM or PM in Universal Time. Look it up. There is no silliness involved. Clear skies Carsten A. Arnholm http://arnholm.org/ N59.776 E10.457 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Wheeler wrote:
[rearranged for clarity] Mike Fitterman wrote: This really is a must. For folks that live in the US "CST" can mean more than one thing. It can be confusing as hell for people who live outside the US to figure out what our timezones map to. Mike. "AstronomyWanaB" wrote in message news I sure wish most here would report in UT various events observed. Local time has no meaning if your 1000's of kms away. DO IT IN UT WILL YA??! OTOH -- those who live in UT (Utah) could become very confused :-) Phil Well, that's what I thought. "He must want more trip reports from Utah or something..." Most of us here think of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), not UT. I have no idea what the offset from GMT is for Pacific Daylight Time (for instance). -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Tonkin wrote in news:6zBSHQNK
: Paul Lawler wrote: [...] and if I tell you where I am, then you can do the UT math just as well as I can, If the observer does the arithmetic, it has to be done exactly once. If every reader has to do it, it has to be done n times, where n1. To my mind it shows courtesy to one's readers to do the arithmetic for them. YMMV. Okay... you definitely have a point here. Well made... and taken. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ...
Straw man: no-one is suggesting that people should do that. What is being suggested is that people state "I began observing at 09:00 UT..." I hate to respond to a thread started by a known troll, but I've got to defend Paul Lawler here. If you are discussing an event that looks more or less the same from all over the world, e.g. an occultation, then it is indeed incumbent on you to report in UT. But if you are describing a typical deep-sky observing session, where you browsed through a bunch of deep-sky objects that won't change at all for the next millenium, then UT is an annoying distraction. In that case, it's much more helpful to know the observer's local time, so that you have a sense of how the objects were placed in the sky, and how the observing session fit into the observer's daily routine. The UT is utterly irrelevant; the session would have been the same at 10 pm local time in New York, Rome, or Beijing. A comfortable compromise is to make sure that you *always* report both in local time and in UT. That also sidesteps the problem of not knowing the abbreviations for time zones. If you see somebody say "I started observing at 9 p.m. Aug 14 CDT (02:00 UT Aug 15)," then it's easy enough to figure out that CDT is a local time zone, and if you really care, you can do the math and figure out which one. In the case of meteor observations, it's also useful to know *both* the UT *and* the local time, since meteors are faster and more frequent in the morning than in the evening. Two other pieces of information rarely posted that are very relevant in describing an observing session are latitude and degree of light pollution. - Tony Flanders |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with your logic, Tony. I disagree with the entire concept of
telling folks HOW to report their observations. I'm pleased just to see the reports and do my own time conversions -- so long as they tell me their local time and zone. Phil Tony Flanders wrote: Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ... Straw man: no-one is suggesting that people should do that. What is being suggested is that people state "I began observing at 09:00 UT..." I hate to respond to a thread started by a known troll, but I've got to defend Paul Lawler here. If you are discussing an event that looks more or less the same from all over the world, e.g. an occultation, then it is indeed incumbent on you to report in UT. But if you are describing a typical deep-sky observing session, where you browsed through a bunch of deep-sky objects that won't change at all for the next millenium, then UT is an annoying distraction. In that case, it's much more helpful to know the observer's local time, so that you have a sense of how the objects were placed in the sky, and how the observing session fit into the observer's daily routine. The UT is utterly irrelevant; the session would have been the same at 10 pm local time in New York, Rome, or Beijing. A comfortable compromise is to make sure that you *always* report both in local time and in UT. That also sidesteps the problem of not knowing the abbreviations for time zones. If you see somebody say "I started observing at 9 p.m. Aug 14 CDT (02:00 UT Aug 15)," then it's easy enough to figure out that CDT is a local time zone, and if you really care, you can do the math and figure out which one. In the case of meteor observations, it's also useful to know *both* the UT *and* the local time, since meteors are faster and more frequent in the morning than in the evening. Two other pieces of information rarely posted that are very relevant in describing an observing session are latitude and degree of light pollution. - Tony Flanders |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Flanders wrote:
But if you are describing a typical deep-sky observing session, where you browsed through a bunch of deep-sky objects that won't change at all for the next millenium, then UT is an annoying distraction. Agreed. For DSOs, time of any sort (except sidereal :-) ) is entirely superfluous. What is useful is approximate altitude of object and sky conditions. Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ...
Agreed. For DSOs, time of any sort (except sidereal :-) ) is entirely superfluous. What is useful is approximate altitude of object and sky conditions. Technically, that's true. But since most observing reports on s.a.a. are more of the "I went out and had fun" kind than the "here's the definitive description of XYZ object" kind, I find that knowing the local time adds to the human interest. Moreover, since most people who post on s.a.a. live between latitudes 30N and 50N, and I'm nearly halfway between, knowing that XYZ object was visible at 10 p.m. in their local time clues me in that it will also be visible around then in my own local time. Whereas if the report starts out "I got up at 3:30 a.m. to observe XYZ", I might think twice about adding it to my observing list. Obviously, if I'm really serious about observing something, I'll look up its co-ordinates and figure out where it fits in my plan for the night. But knowing the original poster's local time is a handy shortcut. - Tony Flanders |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
NEWS: Investigator Criticizes Shuttle Report | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 28th 03 01:36 AM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |
DEATH DOES NOT EXIST -- Coal Mine Rescue Proves It | Ed Conrad | Space Shuttle | 4 | August 2nd 03 01:00 AM |