NavList:

   

Reply

> As we've discussed previously, accomodating a time
> standard without leap seconds would present no serious
> problem for celestial navigation.

Besides, the almanacs have been on UT since when - mid 70s? (and thus pretty 
much "disconnected" from "sun time"). 

I would think that as long as the almanac time coincided with time received 
from a radio time signal (or maybe an "atomic" watch in this modern age), the 
actual "real" time scale (however it's defined - leap seconds or none) would 
be irrelevant (i.e. as long as we can obtain an accurate date/time for a 
celestial event, whatever time happens to be reflected on our assorted 
timekeepers is basically irrelevant to the navigation problem).

--
GregR


--- On Mon, 12/22/08, frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.net  wrote:

> From: frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.net 
> Subject: [NavList 6802] Re: Longest year since 1992
> To: NavList@fer3.com
> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 3:46 PM
> And once again, some folks are raising silly objections
> about the possible abolition of leap seconds.
> 
> See:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5361670.ece
> (article written by Mark Henderson, said to be
> "Science Editor")
> 
> The article claims, "Sundials would become even more
> inaccurate than they are already, and it would become almost
> impossible for sailors to navigate by sextant."
> 
> As we've discussed previously, accomodating a time
> standard without leap seconds would present no serious
> problem for celestial navigation. Needless to say, the
> comment about sundials is technically true, but only after
> decades and in a way that no one but an expert would ever
> notice.
> 
> -FER
> 
> 
> 

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

   

Reply