NavList:

   

Reply

No need for George to get snippy either, though he has a history of doing that 
and then complaining whenever someone calls him on it.

--
GregR


--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Fred Hebard  wrote:

> From: Fred Hebard 
> Subject: [NavList 6981] Re: Leap seconds
> To: NavList@fer3.com
> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 10:02 AM
> No need for this Greg.
>
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Greg R. wrote:
>
> >
> > Ignoring his usual pomposity (not to mention the
> unnecessary
> > verbosity and prolixity in this post), I take it that
> George agrees
> > substantially with what I originally posted (at least
> in principle,
> > if not necessarily with my particular choice of
> words).
> >
> > So thanks for finally agreeing with me, George - if
> only in your
> > usual oblique (and occasionally obtuse) manner. That
> wasn't so
> > hard, was it?
> >
> > --
> > GregR
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 1/10/09, George Huxtable
>  wrote:
> >
> >> From: George Huxtable 
> >> Subject: [NavList 6976] Re: Leap seconds
> >> To: NavList@fer3.com
> >> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 3:52 PM
> >> Referring, apparently,  to posting [6933] (with
> which I have
> >> no
> >> disagreement) from Gary LaPook, GregR has written-
> >>
> >>
> >> "George:
> >>
> >> Are you reading this? Because this is EXACTLY what
> I was
> >> referring to
> >> earlier (i.e. that whatever time scale we use as
> navigators
> >> is totally
> >> irrelevant - as long as we can correlate it to the
> time in
> >> an almanac, or
> >> whatever is used to obtain the date/time for a
> celestial
> >> event).
> >>
> >> I still don't know if you were being troll-ish
> earlier
> >> or honestly trying to
> >> contribute to the discussion, but at least I'm
> not the
> >> only one who
> >> understands the concept - however abstract it
> might be for
> >> some on the list
> >> to comprehend."
> >>
> >> =============================
> >>
> >> Coming from anyone else on this list, I would
> simply laugh
> >> off the personal
> >> comments in that posting, but GregR has a track
> record of
> >> repeated and
> >> unwarranted personal unpleasantness in some of his
> earlier
> >> contributions, so
> >> I am disinclined to treat such matters lightly,
> from him.
> >>
> >> If he can avoid getting overheated, and deal with
> any
> >> question on a straight
> >> factual basis, as I will do, we may be able to
> manage
> >> fruitful discussion
> >> between us. Otherwise, not.
> >>
> >> ============================
> >>
> >> To be honest, I'm not really sure what Greg is
> arguing
> >> about. He contends
> >> "that whatever time scale we use as
> navigators is
> >> totally irrelevant - as
> >> long as we can correlate it to the time in an
> almanac, or
> >> whatever is used
> >> to obtain the date/time for a celestial
> event"
> >>
> >> I might well agree, depending on what meaning we
> agree on
> >> for "correlate".
> >> If that includes adjusting for the number of leap
> seconds
> >> that would have
> >> occurred since the almanac was produced, which is
> what
> >> would need to happen
> >> if we adopted Atomic Time for our clocks, then
> GregR and I
> >> do not differ.
> >>
> >> I don't know how long in advance almanacs are
> >> calculated and printed, but
> >> let's say, for the purpose of argument, five
> years. So
> >> that means that the
> >> almanacs that we use today were produced in 2004.
> There was
> >> no way the
> >> compilers could predict, then, just how much the
> Earth
> >> would slow in the
> >> next 5 years. If we were to switch to Atomic Time,
> it would
> >> mean that before
> >> we could use any of the data in an almanac, we
> would need
> >> to discover how
> >> much the Earth's spin had diverged from its
> nominal
> >> rate in that interval,
> >> and allow for it by adjusting the reading of an
> accurate
> >> clock. That applies
> >> to predictions, not just of the Sun, but of any
> planet, and
> >> via GHA Aries,
> >> any star. Each one of us, individually, would have
> to work
> >> out our own
> >> correction, depending on the date of our almanac
> and the
> >> (unpredictable)
> >> adjustment that's called for. Instead of what
> happens
> >> now, when it's done
> >> automatically (within less than a second of error,
> anyway)
> >> for us all, by
> >> applying leap-seconds to everyone's clock.
> >>
> >> It's a matter of discussion whether Atomic
> Time or the
> >> present compromise of
> >> Leap-second-adjusted time is the most convenient
> way to
> >> work our clocks in
> >> the future. My personal opinion is that neither
> is, but a
> >> smoothly adjusted
> >> clock-rate, that corresponds as well as possible
> to the
> >> observed rotation of
> >> the Earth, would be more viable over the long run.
> But that
> >> isn't relevant
> >> to our present discussion.
> >>
> >> Let's take the chance, now, to clear up some
> loose ends
> >> from GregR's initial
> >> posting, [6805]. He had written "Besides, the
> almanacs
> >> have been on UT since
> >> when - mid 70s? (and thus pretty much
> >> "disconnected" from "sun
> time")."
> >> On
> >> the contrary, we have seen that almanacs are,
> indeed,
> >> closely connected with
> >> Sun Time, because UT is, within less than a
> second, by the
> >> operation of leap
> >> seconds. And I have asked him what it is that he
> reckons
> >> occurred in the
> >> mid-70s to change that situation, to which there
> has been
> >> no reply.
> >>
> >> George.
> >>
> >> contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
> >> or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
> >> or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13
> 5HX, UK.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply