[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
dot at dotat.at
Fri Sep 3 14:06:34 EDT 2010
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > As we have seen there are a lot of intricate
> >details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way
> >to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical
> >GMT doesn't exist.
> Interesting argument. I disagree with your central point: I don't
> think an official realisation of GMT is required in order for GMT to
> meaningfully exist.
Note that in the above I'm talking about astronomical GMT. There is an
official realisation of legal GMT, and it is UTC. If you create a new
astronomical timescale it would be wrong to claim it is GMT. GMT(Zefram)
is probably OK though :-)
> Making a clear distinction between ideal and realisation smells like
> modern behaviour; considering the many different meanings of "GMT" that
> have already been identified, I would not be surprised at it being
> irretrievably ambiguous in this respect.
Yes, definitely. I'm stretching when I claim that the practical realities
of time in the UK are enough to unambiguously define GMT == UTC
(obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion).
> Does anyone have relevant historical documentation on the philosophical
> definition of GMT?
This is brief and sketchy:
f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR
ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
More information about the LEAPSECS