[LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

[Rob Seaman]

I wrote:


>> Whatever the preferences of the ITU, they will discover that it is  

>> simply unacceptable to allow local dates to vary secularly from  

>> civil timekeeping dates.


Tony Finch replies:


> Civil time *is* a form of local time.


The question isn't about haggling over terminology.  We've had that  
discussion before.

Rather, a clock can be deposited at any meridian on any planet, set to  
any time, running at any rate.  The question is whether a particular  
choice of parameters is useful and sustainable.  Additionally if a  
planet has populations scattered at wide longitudes, the more basic  
requirement is to organize a coherent system to manage the whole.

Identifying the length of the civil day with the length of the mean  
solar day is the key to providing that coherence.  (True now on Mars  
as well as Earth.)  The mean solar day is just the sidereal day plus  
the synodic correction for lapping the sun once a year.  The mean  
solar day is a global phenomenon.  The eccentricity of the Earth's  
orbit and the tilt of its axis (etc) add periodic terms that average  
out.  Latitude and politics overlay local variations that are a  
distraction from the central issue.  Tidal slowing, on the other hand,  
represents a global long term secular trend.  A trend with global  
implications demands a global solution.

The trend just happens to be slow enough to permit cheating.   
Consensus based planning is necessary *especially* if we decide to  
cheat.  Cheating is ultimately fruitless over the long term, no matter  
what.

The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term  
future.  A permanent embargo on leap seconds does not have one.   
Whatever action the ITU takes, it should be fully and carefully  
planned and not obligate our descendants to clean up an embarrassing  
mess.


>> Only one - standard time based on mean solar time - has ever been  

>> shown to be *practically* workable.

>

> Two: standard time plus daylight saving time is the other


DST is a trivial gimmick layered on standard time.  Standard time is a  
global system layered on the mean solar day.

Ideally we will come out of this exercise with an improvement to  
standard timekeeping.  Wouldn't it be more fun to pursue that project  
rather than playing an endless game of whack-a-mole with ITU politics?

Rob