Re: [LEAPSECS] building consensus

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_NOAO.EDU>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:05:26 -0700

On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:47 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by "civil time" in this context.

I meant whatever we've meant in this forum for the past five years.

> For some people, civil time is synonymous with standard time; for
> others, it means the time shown by accurate clocks in the locality.

I presume you aren't asserting that standard time clocks can't be
accurate, but rather distinguishing between standard (timezone)
time and local mean solar time?

On the other hand, all I've ever meant by the term "civil time" is
that time that a well educated civilian sets her clock in order to
agree with other civilians for civilian purposes.

> There was no day labeled 1845-12-31 in the Philippines.
> Consequently, the year 1844 had only 365 days there, and
> the last week of 1845 lacked a Wednesday.

Interesting question: On similar historical occasions, for instance
during the transition from "old style" to "new style" dates as the
Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian, has the sequence of
days of the week remained unbroken? Or rather, have days of the
week been skipped as well as days of the month? Surely the Gregorian
calendar is not just a rule for adding a leap day every four years
(except
sometimes), but also includes the definitions of the twelve months, and
an initialization of a specific day-of-the-week on whatever date.

> This was not a calendar transition, but a (drastic) time zone
> transition
> involving moving the International Date Line to the east.

Not obvious that there is any difference - kind of a calendrical
Mach's Principle.

Rob
NOAO
Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 16:07:05 PDT