[LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

[John Sauter]

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 13:41 +0100, Preben Nørager wrote:
> On Tue Jan 3 14:18:52 EST 2017, John Sauter wrote:
> 
> "I regard leap seconds as a reasonable compromise between the needs
> of civil time and of science. Civil time needs a clock that tracks
> the days and the seasons. Science requires a clock that measures time
> in precise intervals. UTC provides both, using leap seconds to keep
> atomic time synchronized with the rotation of the Earth."
> 
> I think there is something wrong with that argument. Civil
> timekeeping holds both a clock, and a calendar. The calendar track
> the seasons, while the clock track the time. If it is to be said,
> that the clock track the days, it is important to notice the
> difference between apparent time, and mean time. The clock track
> either the sun (apparent time), or the seconds (mean time). 
> 
> When the Nautical Almanac in 1833 substituted mean for apparent solar
> time, an important step was taken. From now on chronometry was to
> rely on mechanical clocks, and with the invention of atomic clocks,
> the tracking of the 24-hour day (86400 international seconds) can now
> happen without any daily tracking of the sun.     
> 
> The question really is whether the calendar needs the daily tracking
> of the sun or not. And the answer to that question obviously depend
> upon which calendar we want!  
> 
> I think the disagreement about leap seconds, really is a disagreement
> about which calendar to use for civil timekeeping. If we agree to use
> the proleptic gregorian calendar (ISO 8601) there is really no need
> for leap seconds. That calendar track the seasons well, and with the
> slight modification, to add the additional rule that years evenly
> divisible by 4000 are not leap years, it would track them even
> better. 
> 
> Leap seconds are really only a need for those who do not want to see
> the proleptic gregorian calendar become universal. For instance for
> those who want to use the julian period, as the basis for one
> calendar or another, because they must somehow rely on apparent time,
> and not mean time, because the julian period count apparent solar
> days. 
> 
> Let us use ISO 8601, and abolish leap seconds all together.

ISO 8601 handles leap seconds perfectly well.  In ISO 8601 format, the
most recent leap second was named 2016-21-31T23:59:60Z.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "Leap seconds are really
only a need for those who do not want to see the proleptic gregorian
calendar become universal."  I would have no objection to the proleptic
Gregorian calendar becoming universal (though I would not force it on
anyone who did not like it) and yet I am a supporter of leap seconds.
    John Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com)

-- 
PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603  49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20170109/977c2038/attachment.pgp>