[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)?
Regards,
Mark Calabretta
More information about the LEAPSECS
mailing list