[LEAPSECS] Does the "leap second" matter?

[Rob Seaman]

Hi Kevin,


> I have to admit that the idea of biological clocks makes me cringe a bit.

> This is because "clock" is a metaphor that is constraining biological and

> neuroscientific research right now.


We traded some email earlier and I don't disagree with anything said.  I might assert that "clock" is just as misleading a metaphor in the physical sciences :-)


> Biological systems are not clocks. If they were good clocks, we'd have no

> need for clocks.


Something like http://youtu.be/q030WNZvXrA

...and it's decimal!


> Instead, the circadian cycles that Dava talks about and

> which Cziesler has done extensive research on are systems that are very

> good at maintaining themselves for durations on the order of a few days,

> but they need a time  time reference to continue to function properly.  In

> most species, the time reference is exposure to light (particularly

> sunrise).  Without the time reference, the cycles drift.


Just as with the 10,000-year clock:

	http://blog.longnow.org/02007/06/04/solar-synchronizer/


> As a result, time in biological systems is different from a continuous

> timescale since the biological systems are designed to reset every day


Distribution of a "continuous" timescale depends on the same requirements:

	"...an electronic timekeeping protocol needs some wiggle room to adjust the rate of each clock to maintain nominal time agreement with the national timescale." - D. Mills, Computer Network Time Synchronization, p.2

Just a matter of the size of the wiggles :-)

Rob