Rob Seaman scripsit:
> What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require
> the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of Universal
> Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?
*sigh*
LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to
a UTC time is currently (a) annoying and (b) depends on updating tables.
> Attempting to move the entire worldwide civil time system to a
> non-Earth based clock is equivalent to attempting to build a clock
> designed to run untended for 600 years - in effect, to attempting to
> build a millennium clock. The alarm must be designed to ring in 599
> years time.
This is simply not true. The LCT-TI offsets can be adjusted locally as and
when they individually start to be a problem. No global changeover is required.
> Systems that don't need time-of-day should use TAI.
Wall clocks need to run in LCT, which is currently founded on UTC. Most people
don't need precision time-of-day (which should be rightly called "Earth angle"
and measured in SI radians). They just need there to be a rough correlation
between LCT and the sun, and several hours' discrepancy can be tolerated.
Just go to Urumqi, or Detroit if Urumqi is too remote.
> And most definitely, let's stop these inane and embarrassing closed
> door discussions among biased insiders.
Personally, I am a biased outsider.
> It ain't your clock - it's *our* clock.
Eh? Who are "you" and who are "we"?
--
Not to perambulate John Cowan <jcowan_at_reutershealth.com>
the corridors http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
Received on Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:24:54 PST