A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leap second proposal



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 12, 10:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Leap second proposal

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.



  #2  
Old December 27th 12, 11:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Leap second proposal

"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.

  #3  
Old December 27th 12, 11:51 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Leap second proposal

On Dec 27, 2:52*am, oriel36 quoted, in
part:
The Wall Street
Journal noted that the proposal was considered by a U.S. official to
be a "private matter internal to the ITU",


Which I presume means that if they do something daft like abolishing
leap seconds without changing the length of the second to fit the
solar day (which is what I presume you would want), the U.S., at
least, will just ignore them insofar as setting civil time for
ordinary people's use is concerned.

Good for them.

John Savard
  #4  
Old December 27th 12, 12:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Leap second proposal

This not invite responses from thugs and science fiction fans,it is a
highly technical topic that is within the vernacular of the interested
adult and it represent the single most important topic in science as
engineers try to justify the abolition of an already unjustifiable
'leap second' and the right ascension reasoning from which it emerged.

Most here have staked their reputations on promoting the 'solar vs
sidereal' nonsense that is now being bypassed for an alternative
assertion which assigns significance to the year 1820 in stating that
it reflects the year when one day and one rotation occurred in 24
hours exactly -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about
23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA
Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or
86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased
by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA

It cannot be overstated that so long as the core principles which
maintain the connection between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects are tampered with there can be no such thing as productive
research in either astronomy or terrestrial sciences and that is why
it is so important to stop this nonsense long before some silly
engineers bury the wider world further in right ascension thinking
making it ever more harder to emerge from.

It is the responsibility of every single person with the exception of
thugs,sci-fi fans,cult followers,ect,to make sure that they absolutely
abolish the nuisance of leap seconds but do so for the correct reasons
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conjecture that the Earth
is slowing down from an idealistic 24 hour period in 1820.It is time
to grow up for a lot of people who have already discredited themselves
for promoting the Ra/Dec cartoon conception no longer adhered to by
the satellite community.In short,people are getting an undeserved
second chance.



  #5  
Old December 27th 12, 01:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Leap second proposal

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

This not invite responses from thugs and science fiction fans,it is a
highly technical topic that is within the vernacular of the interested
adult and it represent the single most important topic in science as
engineers try to justify the abolition of an already unjustifiable
'leap second' and the right ascension reasoning from which it emerged.

Most here have staked their reputations on promoting the 'solar vs
sidereal' nonsense
================================================== ==
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, thug. "Most here"
(everybody) knows your reputation is one of a crank.
Nobody "promotes" the simple fact of sidereal time understood by everybody
except you, facts do not need promoting.

-- 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.

  #6  
Old December 27th 12, 03:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Leap second proposal

On Dec 27, 12:51*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"oriel36" *wrote in message

...

This not invite responses from thugs and science fiction fans,it is a
highly technical topic that is within the vernacular of the interested
adult and it represent the single most important topic in science as
engineers try to justify the abolition of an already unjustifiable
'leap second' and the right ascension reasoning from which it emerged.

Most here have staked their reputations on promoting the 'solar vs
sidereal' nonsense
================================================== ==
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, thug. "Most here"
(everybody) knows your reputation is one of a crank.
Nobody "promotes" the simple fact of sidereal time understood by everybody
except you, facts do not need promoting.


Trying to play a Usenet thug among your own in sci.relativity might
work there but this is saa.You,as much as utter a swear word again in
a post I submit and forget it but then again you may well represent
empiricism in its true form behind the veneer a science fiction
machine on an industrial scale bookended by fraud on one side and
incompetence on the other.I assure you that this is the last
distraction I will suffer in making this point clear - the attempt to
change the story from the 'solar vs sidereal' junk to a new story of
an idealistic 24 hour rotation in 1842 is broadly in keeping with the
vicious strain of empiricism that has destroyed astronomy and
terrestrial sciences.



-- 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.


  #7  
Old December 27th 12, 04:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Leap second proposal

On Dec 27, 4:45*am, oriel36 wrote:

and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conjecture that the Earth
is slowing down from an idealistic 24 hour period in 1820.


Unless you are claiming that this "conjecture" is *false*, you do have
to explain how to deal with the fact that seconds are used for
purposes in electronics, for example, as well as other sciences, that
depend on the second being a constant unit of time.

It's not as if they didn't have accurate measuring instruments in
1820, even if they didn't have today's atomic clocks.

John Savard
  #8  
Old December 27th 12, 05:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Leap second proposal

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Dec 27, 12:51 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...

This not invite responses from thugs and science fiction fans,it is a
highly technical topic that is within the vernacular of the interested
adult and it represent the single most important topic in science as
engineers try to justify the abolition of an already unjustifiable
'leap second' and the right ascension reasoning from which it emerged.

Most here have staked their reputations on promoting the 'solar vs
sidereal' nonsense
================================================== ==
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, thug. "Most here"
(everybody) knows your reputation is one of a crank.
Nobody "promotes" the simple fact of sidereal time understood by everybody
except you, facts do not need promoting.


Trying to play a Usenet thug among your own in sci.relativity might
work there but this is saa
================================================== =====
"Most here" (everybody) knows your reputation is one of a lunatic.
Nobody here (saa) is fooled by you calling a simple fact "junk", lunatic,
many here (saa) have clock driven telescope mounts that are not junk,
they operate on sidereal time and turn the telescope 361 degrees in
24 hours because the Earth turns 361 degrees in 24 hours, which
they understand and you don't.
Most ignore you completely. I should too, but as you are a bullying thug
I'll go toe to toe with you.
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, vicious 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.

  #9  
Old December 27th 12, 05:52 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mark Storkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Leap second proposal

In article
,
Quadibloc wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:45*am, oriel36 wrote:

and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conjecture that the Earth
is slowing down from an idealistic 24 hour period in 1820.


Unless you are claiming that this "conjecture" is *false*, you do have
to explain how to deal with the fact that seconds are used for
purposes in electronics, for example, as well as other sciences, that
depend on the second being a constant unit of time.

It's not as if they didn't have accurate measuring instruments in
1820, even if they didn't have today's atomic clocks.

John Savard


The guy's a half-witted moron with a thesaurus. Please just kill file
him already so these threads stop popping up.

By the way, anybody know of a news reader that will kill an entire
thread based on who started it?
  #10  
Old December 27th 12, 06:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Leap second proposal

On Dec 27, 4:23*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"oriel36" *wrote in message

...

On Dec 27, 12:51 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"









wrote:
"oriel36" *wrote in message


...


This not invite responses from thugs and science fiction fans,it is a
highly technical topic that is within the vernacular of the interested
adult and it represent the single most important topic in science as
engineers try to justify the abolition of an already unjustifiable
'leap second' and the right ascension reasoning from which it emerged.


Most here have staked their reputations on promoting the 'solar vs
sidereal' nonsense
================================================== ==
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, thug. "Most here"
(everybody) knows your reputation is one of a crank.
Nobody "promotes" the simple fact of sidereal time understood by everybody
except you, facts do not need promoting.


Trying to play a Usenet thug among your own in sci.relativity might
work there but this is saa
================================================== =====
"Most here" (everybody) knows your reputation is one of a lunatic.
Nobody here (saa) is fooled by you calling a simple fact "junk", lunatic,
many here (saa) *have clock driven telescope mounts that are not junk,
they operate on sidereal time and turn the telescope 361 degrees in
24 hours because the Earth turns 361 degrees in 24 hours, which
they understand and you don't.


The now bypassed 'solar vs sidereal' nonsense was that the Earth
turns 1465 times in 1461 days even though the central Sun and the star
Sirius provides the references which use the daily return of the Sun
and the annual appearance of Sirius as a means to gauge the proportion
of rotations to orbital circuits to the nearest rotation.The sum total
of 1461 rotations in 1461 days/4 annual circuits where Sirius makes an
annual return breaks down into 365 1/4 rotations per annual circuit as
a natural fact that was unused in creating the human devised format of
3 years of 365 days/rotations with an extra day/rotation after the 4th
cycle.This is not about any person's stupidity - a reasonable person
grounds their understanding on February 29th as both a 24 hour AM/PM
cycle and one rotation and that is it.

There is no such thing as 361 degrees,mathematicians who simply detest
geometry may complain but it doesn't exist - the average time across
the accumulative 1461 natural noon AM/PM cycles is 24 hours and the
steady progression of these days substitute for constant/steady
rotation and do not fall out of step.

The attempt now,after suddenly discovering how the Lat/Long system
works in tandem with the 24 hour AM/PM system is to disavow the 'two-
sticks-in-the-ground' followers like yourself and make up an entirely
new fiction that retains 24 hours as one rotation but uses the same Ra/
Dec approach without even qualifying it other than attaching
assertions of the Earth slowing down.The criminality is that the story
will be changed to suit new circumstances and that is why it was
always an intellectual holocaust - it promotes shortcuts and
distortions of genuine human achievement and replaces them with phony
ideologies which serve no end whatsoever and destroy the ability of
students and interested adults to gain understanding of astronomy and
human involvement in it.

Approached properly,the abolition of the meaningless leap seconds
would be perfectly fine as long as a segregation occurred between
what is a timekeeping convenience and the references used to create
those conveniences as distinct from the natural cycles which occurs
separately,specifically the differences between the ecliptic axis and
the single turning of the Earth to the central Sun from the daily
turning to the central Sun.






Most ignore you completely. I should too, but as you are a bullying thug
I'll go toe to toe with you.
You need not worry about staking YOUR reputation, vicious 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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The leap day oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 29 August 21st 15 09:54 PM
To Leap or Not to Leap: Scientists debate a timely issue Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 7 April 24th 06 08:42 AM
LEAP YEAR, LEAP SECOND 31.12.2005, CALENDAR.=====.. [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 5 December 29th 05 04:14 AM
Leap Seconds Eric Chomko Policy 2 July 15th 04 11:19 PM
Concerning the leap day Oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 0 April 29th 04 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.