[LEAPSECS] Conversational caffeine

Rob Seaman seaman at noao.edu
Fri Jan 28 18:47:08 EST 2011

On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Warner Losh wrote:

> Sometimes I think we should define a second that's 1e-11 or so shorter so that the problems of leap seconds disappear into the noise for a generation or three, but I doubt that would fare any better than any of the other suggestions made...

It's been ignored since I suggested it in 2001:


(Under "Future Directions")

However, view it the other way. Define a second that's 0.001% (just 1/100,000) shorter. When a leap-hour-equivalent is required every decade it will become obvious that the "day" is more fundamental to civilization than the "second".

Better yet, call the SI unit something other than a "second" and sever this artificial confusion.

Interval time and Earth Orientation are two separate things.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list