[LEAPSECS] What's the point?

Mark Calabretta mcalabre at atnf.csiro.au
Thu Feb 10 19:03:11 EST 2011

On Thu 2011/02/10 10:27:34 -0000, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>

>> If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"

>> argument for immediately changing UTC, would it be too much to

>> expect that its replacement actually solve the problem rather

>> than simply delay it?


>There is no solution to the problem, if you define the problem as

>satisfying the requirements that civil time is tightly coupled to UT,

>there are always 86400 seconds in a day, and seconds are SI seconds

>realised on the geoid. We've tried relaxing two of these requirements

>and neither result was very satisfactory.

It's been a while... Can you remind me why we will need to continue
to pretend that there are 86400 SI seconds in a day, past the time
when there are actually 86401 (or more)?

Mark Calabretta

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list