[LEAPSECS] Leap smear

[Stephen Colebourne]

On 24 September 2011 06:59, mike cook <michael.cook at sfr.fr> wrote:

> I do think "day" should be defined as the synodic day, as that is what

> humans without clocks experience. That it varies in length is of no real

> consequence.  As has probably been expressed elsewhere, the controversy over

> the definition of UTC, and the introduction of leap seconds is due to what I

> think is an error in the definition of the second. Since its inception

> people have been trying to measure a rubber band (LOD) with a fixed length

> stick, the SI second. I don't think the SI second should have been called a

> second. It should have been called something like an ITU (Intervalle  de

> temps universal)


I quite like the name "duron". This unit would need to be used by the
general public though. Consider world records in a sporting event like
athletics. These shouldn't change over time, so they would need to be
measured in durons. Any laws or rules that required a fixed duration
of time that never changes over time would need to refer to durons,
not seconds (or minutes/hours/days).


>  and the second left as the rubbery 86400th of the MSD.

> This could be implemented as it was the case in the past. We just need in

> the same transmission the "tick" of TAI so that the requirement of a uniform

> scale is available to those who want one.


Overall, I think that this scheme is theoretically the right one as it
treats days and 86400 divisions of days (seconds) correctly. But I
have strong doubts that disconnecting the duration of time from the
clock time would be easy for the minds of the general public (and thus
politicians) to do.

Basically, I've come to see leap seconds as the best compromise for
civil time between the "right" solution outlined here and the "pure"
solution of TAI, with leap smear or SLS being the essential missing
glue.

Stephen