|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:14 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 |