NavList:

   

Reply

> Greg R, in [6805], wrote-
>
> "Besides, the almanacs have been on UT since when - mid 70s? (and thus
> pretty much "disconnected" from "sun time"). ".

to which I commented-

> On the contrary, though, the leap seconds are inserted just so that UT,
> incrementing at a constant rate compatible with atomic time, keeps in step
> with the Mean Sun, to within 0.6 seconds, as do the almanacs. They remain
> closely connected with Sun time.

And Greg has replied-

"I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say - i.e. that our time
reference (based on a multiple of the period of the Cesium atom) is
something that's not related to the motion of the earth (and by reference,
also the sun) any longer (which is exactly why there's a need for leap
seconds periodically, in an effort to keep the two roughly "in sync").

My point was that since we're now on this atomic timescale (that really
isn't in sync with "sun time"), as long as the almanacs and our timekeepers
were on the same time scale (so that we could accurately mark the date/time
of a celestial event), does it really matter what actual "time" the event
occurred? It could be some random number not even related to "sun time", but
as long as we could use it as a reference point for starting our
calculations (i.e. GHA/Dec) the actual value is actually irrelevant."

Next from George-

Well, all I had to go on was Greg R's words, in [6805], which I quoted. It
was those words that I was questioning.

But really , it's more complicated than Greg makes out. There really ARE two
time-scales, that run at irreconcilable rates, with the differences
unpredictable in advance. It's a fact of life. And they have different
effects. Take the implications for astronomers. The way they point their
telescopes towards a star depends on the rotation of the Earth. So that
depends on a time-scale that's gradually slowing, and unpredictably. But now
think about the motions of , say, Mars, in the sky, relative to the Sun and
stars. That is completely unaffected by the revolutions of the Earth. If the
Earth stopped spinning on its axis, Mars' motion round the Sun would
continue unaffected. It's governed by the physical laws of gravity and
relativity, for which, unchanging atomic time is relevant.

Yes, Greg R can use some sort of formula to convert one time-scale to the
other, knowing the history of the way Earth rotation speed has varied in the
past. But he CAN'T do that into the future, because of the unpredictability
of the slowing. And that's really the basic reason why efforts to constrain
two such time-scales to run in step are, in the long-term, doomed to fail.

George.





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

   

Reply