[fitsbits] Re: leap second alert

[Paul Schlyter]

In article <199912142226.RAA21028 at xebec.harvard.edu>,
Arnold Rots  <arots at head-cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Steve Allen wrote:
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.991214080223.23121A-100000 at rlsaxps.bnsc.rl.ac.uk>,
>> Patrick Wallace  <ptw at star.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> If the definition of UTC is modified in this ex post facto manner
>> we risk another era of confusion and the ridicule of posterity.
>> 
>> UTC should stay as it is, with leaps.  If the civil authorities
>> need a leap-free time they should adopt an existing scale.
 
I agree fully with that.
 
 
> The mechanism is already in place:
> 1. Forego the expected leap second 2000-06-30T23:59:60 UTC
> 2. Set 64.184 negative leapseconds at the end of 2000:
>    2000-12-31T23:58:55.816 UTC = 2001-01-01T00:00:00.0 UTC
> 3. By general agreement, no more leap seconds after that
> 
> That way, we enter the third millennium in a dignified way, with UTC
> and TT synchronized :-)
 
...and UT1 would be off by several hours...
 
BTW what happened to TAI in your scheme ???
 
Finally: if you want TT, why not simply use TT and leave UTC alone?
 
 
> I would bet, though, that a year isn't enough and that it won't come
> about till the start of the twenty-second century, in 2101.
 
We already have two timescales without leap seconds:  TT and TAI.  If
you need a time scale without leap seconds, use one of these!!!
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf.se    paul.schlyter at ausys.se   paul at inorbit.com
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch