Steve Allen <sla_at_UCOLICK.ORG> wrote:
> I'll offer a crude paraphrase of the viewpoints on the issue of
> knowing the interval to a date a year in the future:
You would have a much easier time (pun) predicting the interval in SI
seconds to a calendar date a year in the future if you use the Republic
of Terra Calendar instead of the Gregorian one:
http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/RT/calendar/spec.txt
While the focus of this list has been on the inherent incongruence
between Earth's diurnal rotation and atomic time and the fundamental
problems in the various schemes to paste over it, the focus of my
calendrical work has been on the inherent incongruence between Earth's
diurnal rotation and Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the fundamental
problems in the various schemes to paste over it.
Just like some people here assert that interval time and time of day
are two different things (and I would go even further and say that the
SI second and the civil second should be two different things, allowing
the latter to be elastic), I assert that a day and a date should be two
different things: days are timed by the diurnal rotation, dates are
subdivisions of the tropical year and are supposed to indicate where
Earth is in its orbit relative to the vernal equinox irrespective of
whether it rotates or not at all.
My solution is rather complex and is detailed in the RT Calendar
Specification pointed to above. The relevant answer here however is
that the RT Calendar assigns dates based strictly on the cycle of
tropical years completely irrespective of Earth's rotation, and Earth's
orbital motion is much more stable and predictable than its rotation
about its axis.
MS
Received on Tue Dec 26 2006 - 09:56:02 PST