RE: [LEAPSECS] name the equinox contest on now

From: Seeds, Glen <Glen.Seeds_at_Cognos.COM>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:41:03 -0500

My concern is for the general populace, not for astronomers. For the former,
"apparent" is what matters, and in matters in lay terms, not in astronomical
terms. If astronomers wish to be helpful by using more precise measurement
techniques, that's great, as long as it's not at odds with what an
individual can see. If they wish instead to use a system that is at odds,
because that's what they need, that's OK too, as long as it's not forced on
everyone else. Whatever system we collectively come up with has to be this
flexible, or agreement will not be reachable.
  /glen


-----Original Message-----
From: Leap Seconds Issues [mailto:LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL]On Behalf
Of jcowan_at_REUTERSHEALTH.COM
Sent: January 30, 2004 10:41 AM
To: LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] name the equinox contest on now


Seeds, Glen scripsit:

> The answer to your question is easy: it's only the apparent sun that
matters
> for UT. The rationale here is that we're looking for a time base that's
> maximally useful to most people in the planet, for most of what they do.
The
> core of the definition of UT seems to satisfy this.

AFAIU, UT is based on mean time, not apparent time.
...

This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you
have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any
attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender
promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
Received on Fri Jan 30 2004 - 14:41:42 PST