[ntp:questions] The Leap Millisecond

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Mon Jun 4 21:27:59 UTC 2007


oriel36 wrote:
> Thank God there was always room for brilliant men to create the
> timekeeping systems which create the equable 24 hour day,create the
> seperate calendar system with enough sense to know the difference.It
> means that people will enjoy the careful set of astronomical
> principles set out even though presently a rogue group have done the
> unexplicable things in tying axial rotation directly to a celestial
> sphere geometry -
> 
> "Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the
> sidereal
> time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time,
> the
> difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the
> Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-
> 
> 
> ... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> isochronical... "
> 
> This IERS business is a foolish hoax on humanity born of that terrible
> error by Flamsteed , designed more for pretensious purposes while
> being a meaningless exercise in astrological geometry .People are
> better served by becoming familiar with  the equable 24 hour cycle and
> how it comes from determination of the variations in the natural noon
> cycle.
> 
> All the worthless doctorates here would be a lot less worthless if
> they at least attempted to promote the proper principles  based on a
> 24 hour/360 degree correlation by acknowledging that it does not
> represent the rotation of the Earth but rather a convenient
> heliocentric adaption of the average 24 hour day transfered to the
> axial cycle .
> 
> Where,in God's name, are all the astronomers who have the power to
> overule this 'sidereal' nonsense ?.This is the actual creation of the
> 24 hour day by brilliant men I am trying to discuss and not some
> minor trivia yet nobody here takes it seriously.What is going on with
> people ?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> 
>>(While researching this, I came across the leap second list
>>at [http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap-seconds.3169152000],
>>which expired in 2004.  Does anyone know of a newer version?)
>>
>>In the sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro newsgroups (See "Avoiding
>>the Leap Second" thread) Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've come up with an alternate scheme.
>>
>>>Divide the year into ten parts of 37 and 36 days in alternation. Start
>>
>>>from March 1 to keep things simple in leap years.
>>
>>
>>>For the first 33 1/3 days of each of those parts, sweep increments of
>>>100 milliseconds "under the rug" by adding one millisecond to the last
>>>second of each eight-hour period. This would allow a time scale to be
>>>kept within 0.1 seconds of mean solar time, and it would also mean
>>>that, most of the time, a time signal would consist of a steady stream
>>>of SI seconds; the long seconds would come at predictable intervals.
>>
>>An excellent scheme.  Let me be the first to say that I approve.
>>
>>Looking forward to possible objections to certain seconds being
>>1.001 times longer or shorter than most of the other seconds,
>>that seems to me to be far less troublesome than having some
>>minutes be some 1.01666... times longer or shorter than most
>>of the other minutes using leap seconds.
>>
>>Here is what I like about this scheme:
>>
>>The above scheme and the existing leap second scheme both
>>result in the exact same length of the millisecond, microsecond,
>>nanosecond, etc.  Those are much more commonly used than the
>>second is in the areas of physics and engineering.  In the area
>>of computers, time is typically specified as date and time, which
>>means that the computers already have to work with the occasional
>>minute that is 59 or 61 seconds long.
>>
>>The above scheme results in a length for the minute, hour and day
>>that is no more than a millisecond larger or smaller than  most of
>>the other minutes, hours or days.  This is a thousand times closer
>>than under the leap second scheme.  Months and years would be ten
>>times closer.
>>
>>References:
>>
>>The NTP Timescale and Leap Seconds:http://www.ee.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
>>(also touches on GPS)
>>
>>The Future of Leap Secondshttp://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html
>>
>>Propagation of a leap secondhttp://members.iinet.net.au/~nathanael/ntpd/leap-second.html
>>
>>Leap Second Mailing List:http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html
>>
>>--
>>Guy Macon
>><http://www.guymacon.com/>
> 
> 
> 

Twenty-four hours per day seems to work for most of us.  How many hours 
would you like?  If more, where would you get them?  If fewer, how would 
you dispose of the excess?






More information about the questions mailing list