[tz] The case against time zones

[Patrice Scattolin]

It would be a small sacrifice for the Physics community for the betterment of mankind.

Alas it was never meant to be. Because even if you change the second, you don't eliminate the need for the leap second. Luckikly with the current lenght we always need to add seconds. With a better second the error would be randomly distributed on both sides. I am not aware of a case where we have to remove an extraneous second. Imagine a day that is missing a second and ends with 11:59:58! 

----- Original Message -----
From: lester at lsces.co.uk
To: tz at iana.org
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:15:22 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [tz] The case against time zones

On 15/08/14 21:02, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>>> No, it's the length of the earth day that is changing over time as
>>> > > earth's rotation slows due to natural forces.
>>> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-in-the-jurassic-era-an-earth-day-may-have-been-only-23-hours-long/2013/09/23/a75c548a-f2dc-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html
>> > 
>> > Long term yes. Shorter term, say next 100 years, a small increase in
>> > period of a second would be a suitable alternative to the 'problem' of
>> > leap seconds ...
> At the cost of changing every physical constant, starting with the force of
> gravity and the speed of light.

Helps to type first :(

Finally somebody spotted the problem ...
But if the original calculation of number of cycles for a second was
wrong everything is wrong now anyway? :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk