Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Navigation without Leap Seconds
    From: Fred Hebard
    Date: 2008 Apr 15, 08:38 -0400

    Completely unrelated, but stemming from the same article.
    
    The author states that height can only be known to some few cm or
    whatever because of variations in gravity, if I remember correctly.
    It would seem that this is due to our tradition of assuming we are on
    the surface of a spheroid or ellipsoid when doing navigation.
    Confining ourselves to a surface makes the trig easier, but couldn't
    one position oneself with greater accuracy (with feet firmly planted
    on earth, not on a boat) using only stars or stars plus the sun,
    ignoring the earth's horizon, by measuring star-star distances?  Make
    it a true 3-D problem.  Or would uncertainties in the positions of
    stars still hamper ones efforts, especially uncertainty in their
    distance from us?
    
    Fred Hebard
    
    On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:50 PM, frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.net wrote:
    >
    > The fascinating article which Fred Hebard linked:
    >  http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
    > includes a detailed discussion about the problems of gravitational
    > time
    > dilation and extremely accurate clocks. That's the main topic, and
    > it's
    > great stuff.
    >
    > The article also mentions leap seconds and navigation:
    > "Celestial navigators --that vanishing breed-- also like leap
    > seconds. The
    > Global Positioning System, however, cannot tolerate time jumps and
    > employs a
    > time scale that avoids leap seconds."
    >
    > So here's my question: what's the best way of doing celestial
    > navigation if
    > leap seconds are dropped from official time-keeping? I don't think
    > it should
    > be all that difficult to work around, but I'm not sure what the best
    > approach would be. Assume we get to a point where the cumulative time
    > difference is, let's say, 60 seconds (that shouldn't happen for
    > decades, so
    > this is just for the sake of argument). Should we treat the
    > difference as a
    > 60 second clock correction before working the sights? Or should it
    > be a 15
    > minute of arc longitude correction after working the sights? Or
    > something
    > else entirely??
    >
    >  -FER
    > Celestial Navigation Weekend, June 6-8, 2008 at Mystic Seaport Museum:
    > www.fer3.com/Mystic2008
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    
    
    
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site