[LEAPSECS] civil-solar correlation with TI
zefram at fysh.org
Sat Dec 27 08:43:33 EST 2008
Rob Seaman wrote:
>Again, the issue is mean solar time, not local solar time.
This sentence doesn't make sense to me. You seem to have a different
definition of either "mean" or "local" from me. To be clear: the
(periodic) difference between apparent and mean solar time does not
affect my argument, so I ignored it; likewise, the difference between
solar time at one's actual longitude (local solar time) and solar time
at a nearby round-numbered longitude (standard time) is small and does
not affect the psychology.
>it is a question of discovering requirements implicit in our society.
> Historians looking backward
>want to relate events worldwide and arrange them into coherent
Yes, they'll want the Olson database.
> Whatever the preferences of the ITU, they will discover
>that it is simply unacceptable to allow local dates to vary secularly
>from civil timekeeping dates.
I don't see how this follows. Given the Olson database they'll be able
to apply the offsets correctly.
If the date drift per se really is a problem, that would be a reason
to argue for the IDL-jumping version of my scenario, rather than the
More information about the LEAPSECS