Date   : Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:48:32
From   : heyrick.beebsoc@... (Rick Murray)
Subject: [BeebSoc] Necessary? Or change for the sake of change?

On 27/07/2011 11:15, J.G.Harston wrote:

> Hmmm. Dunno. I can see a need for what could be called "uniform UTC",

Surely, then, it would make sense to create a *new* time, instead of 
altering UTC, for:

   1. There's a lot of older code (anything astronomical that uses
      the current time to provide alignment).

   2. uUTC will gradually slip further and further from what it "should"
      be, and thus has no right pretending to be UTC or in fact anything
      more than a sort-of representation of time without the
      eccentricities required for our imperfect universe.


> period of 400 years is **exactly** (400*365+99)*24*60*60 seconds

Most calculations assume this, for the additional seconds aren't, to my 
knowledge, inserted in a specific pattern.


> inserted every now and then to keep in alignment with the sky.

Isn't that more or less what time is?

Hmm... fast forward a few tens of thousands of years, to a time when 
1.47pm describes "sunrise".

You know, out here in France, the church bells go crazy three times a 
day - 7am, 1pm, 7pm (angelous). These mark the times of beginning work 
in the fields, lunch (or returning after lunch?), and the end of work.
Until the railways (and, more recently, broadcast entertainment), that 
was *all* most people had to know. Anything more than that was vague.

These days, a phone call at quarter to five being received at five to 
five is annoying. Programme <x> is on from 21:00 to 21:30. At my place 
of work, the schedule is calculated right down to the quarter hour...

"Time" is a modern thing, really. And if it needs the odd poke to keep 
it in sync, who's to say this is a bad thing? The basic bottom line fact 
of the matter is that reality and time are not entirely perfect. Things 
"wobble".


Best wishes,

Rick.