[fitsbits] Re: leap second alert
Paul Schlyter
pausch at merope.saaf.se
Wed Dec 15 01:35:28 EST 1999
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
More information about the fitsbits
mailing list